From my reading of the article, it's not the existence of a "Buy outside Apple" button, it's the existence of a mechanism at all to purchase the content outside of Apple's marketplace. Again, this is just going by the wording of the NYT article, so if their wording isn't quite correct this may not actually be the case.
It's one thing if it really is about advertisement. It's another if they don't allow an app simply because eBooks can be purchased from retailer X by a means other than Apple's marketplace but not also through Apple's marketplace. Since Apple is a competitor for those products, it creates a tariff for all other competitors to make them less financially able to compete with Apple. In this case, they are trying to guarantee that Apple, and only Apple, has profits from any eBook sale made through Apple's marketplace. In addition, any eBook retailer who chooses to comply with this regime can be undercut by Apple by as much as 30%, and Apple will still maintain at least equal profit margins while enjoying vastly lower apparent prices.
It's usually pretty easy to point out a silver lining stemming some action or actions of any person or group which would otherwise not be typically viewed positively. I'm not saying Apple is in that category, but them helping bring down per-song pricing through iTunes doesn't translate into "their actions in other markets are positive for consumers." Apple saw their actions to be positive for Apple. The side effects are just that to them: side effects.
Apple has done things that are good for consumers, and they have done things that are bad for consumers.
The good behavior doesn't immediately render accusations of bad behavior irrelevant, and vice versa, so implying that it does and calling someone a moron regarding completely unconnected actions is... less than civil, and certainly not anything resembling a rational argument.
Indirectly, yes, but the Internet was a latchkey kid for a long time until it became unexpectedly important (to be noticed by bureaucrats and bean counters).
My third sentence should have been clarification enough, since my second was otherwise ambiguous enough on its own to be interpreted that way.
The supply of a finite resource cannot be "corrected." Since the supply is fixed, the balance is made up in the price side of the equation (or would be, if they were obtainable on the open market).
I thought there was no such things as shortages in a free market
You need to stop using the source from which you got that definition. Nobody, pro- or anti- free market, also having two or more brain cells to rub together, would ever state a free market is supposed (or is claimed) to be free of shortages. There are various claims about how free markets affect short supplies vis-à-vis allocation and price, but not the they can turn a supply from limited to limitless. Any such claim is absurd.
That was the entire point of my post. You can give the game its own little network world. It sees IPv4, and the host does the translation to and from. When configured correctly, as with any app that no longer conforms to current technology standards, the app has its own little bubble where everything works as expected even though the rest of the world has moved on.
It's called "tunneling." If you're playing those on a modern system capable of IPv6, the system can make the game see an IPv4 connection. It doesn't have to know the IPv4 connection is wrapped inside a v6 connection.
Business organizations, like politicians, are usually extraordinarily risk-averse. This touches both in many ways, across many countries. As a result, there won't be any serious pushes into IPv6 until organizations can clearly quantify the damages that will be done from dragging their feet further. Only a small percentage of organizations will fully commit to IPv6 until the guaranteed costs of waiting exceeds the projected costs of moving forward.
Nobody should have expected anything different once the internet became controlled predominantly by public political and private business interests.
That I would come closer to agreeing with. There are situations de-escalated through the display or non-injurious use of a firearm. However, there always exists the threat of deadly force, unlike many other "defense through offense" weapons. The minimum damage from use contact is much, much higher with a firearm, so in that regard I agree completely.
Not a contraction, since the omission is not internal. More likely it was first used as a sarcastic play on the original phrase, and then the tone was dropped by imitators who understood the form but not the function.
Such as various US Federal government websites. I'm not going to hold your hand through an issue that is incredibly complex so that you can just say "Nuh uh." There's more than one side to the issue, and it takes more time and space than a couple Slashdot posts to even come to an agreement on the groundwork for framing the discussion.
It's funny that you believe I worship at the altar of that poo-flinging monkey. Both sides do almost exactly the same thing though. They're right, anyone who is not in lockstep is wrong (even if only by pointing out that neither extreme has a lock on The One True Path).
Me, I happen to piss off both sides because I usually take the time to do my own research. Most people have to be lead by their little hand through it because they can't be bothered, and then get all pissy because a handful of barrels have holes in them or are painted the wrong color, and they immediately pick those out of the entire warehouse of barrels as evidence that the entire run is a screwed-up mess. I'm too tired for that right now. Have a nice day.
It's pretty clear where you stand. If that's truly the case, it's unlikely anything I post here will satisfy you. If you actually care, the information is pretty easily available from authoritative sources.
Short list: FEHB Education loan repayment Continuing education Unrivaled job security (20 firings per 100,000 workers non-defense) Short hours Flexible scheduling Capless leave accrual Top retirement benefits (unless you're a corporate exec)
There are exceptions, none of which are the norm. At upper levels, salaries exceed almost any private sector counterpart in addition to the benefits you will find in almost no other non-executive compensation package.
I did some fairly in-depth research about this topic a couple years back, and yes, in actual salary dollars public sector workers make less than their equally-educated counterparts in the private sector.
However, that discrepancy is made up for in the non-cash perks and benefits received by public sector employees, both long- and short-term. There are many public workers who will complain that they don't fit into that category, but on closer examination such protestations usually turns out to be far more perception than reality.
I'm not arguing for an across-the-board pay cut, just saying that the situation is anything but crystal clear from either side.
I don't feel like spending the next couple hours putting together examples and sources though, so feel free to claim lack of citation.
There are a number of MMOs that use PIN security mechanisms identical to this to defeat keyloggers. No reason why touchscreen devices can't easily implement it. It's not difficult or annoying after the first couple uses.
There are countries I can think of where firearms are likely more dangerous than vehicles, but the US is not one of them.
From 1999 to 2007, the total motorized vehicle death rate was 14.76 per 100,000. The firearm death rate during the same period was 10.33 per 100,000. That said, I'm not sure it matters much. Each side will frame the numbers in ways that support their bias, and will argue endlessly over which comparison is "more accurate." In the end, the only quantifiable "fact" is that one kills people more often in relation to how many of them exist. Whether that is of import to any argument is another matter entirely.
The numbers are obtainable from the CDC NCIPC if anyone cares to verify them.
I wouldn't be surprised when the relevant statistics show that percentage wise, a lot more people get accidentally hurt by cars than by shotguns.
The wording of that is interestingly chosen, and also completely correct (at least if you replace "shogun" with "firearm"). There are roughly only 10% more vehicles per capita in the US than there are firearms per capita in the US. From 1999 to 2007, the overall death rate by firearm in the US was 10.33 per 100,000. During the same period, the overall death rate by motor vehicle was 14.76 per 100,000. 10% more vehicles, 43% more fatalities. If you remove the number of deaths (both categories) of 18-19 year olds who died as a result of being willfully and knowingly involved in violent criminal activity, and all those who committed suicide, the difference is even more starkly apparent.
Cars, like smartphones, are convenient. People overlook the negatives of those things that provide them with an opportunity to use the bare minimum effort to complete a given task more often than not.
FF on your computer should behave like FF on your phone and your tablet.
Yes and no. In general, consistency is a good thing. When you take consistency to an extreme across vastly different platforms though, you are working at the lowest common denominator. You have to remove any functionality that does poorly on any platform in order to get perfect consistency.
Leave in options that allow you to take advantage of platform-specific benefits. There's absolutely no downside to leaving customizable options in place, even if you change the default behavior. I'm perfectly fine with the status bar being removed by default, but removing the capability entirely for the user to keep that functionality has no arguable merit. It gives me another reason to not only avoid installing FireFox but to actively lobby against its deployment by others. I've always been strongly anti-IE, but I have to say, sadly, that IE now tops FireFox in my list of secondary browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
From my reading of the article, it's not the existence of a "Buy outside Apple" button, it's the existence of a mechanism at all to purchase the content outside of Apple's marketplace. Again, this is just going by the wording of the NYT article, so if their wording isn't quite correct this may not actually be the case.
It's one thing if it really is about advertisement. It's another if they don't allow an app simply because eBooks can be purchased from retailer X by a means other than Apple's marketplace but not also through Apple's marketplace. Since Apple is a competitor for those products, it creates a tariff for all other competitors to make them less financially able to compete with Apple. In this case, they are trying to guarantee that Apple, and only Apple, has profits from any eBook sale made through Apple's marketplace. In addition, any eBook retailer who chooses to comply with this regime can be undercut by Apple by as much as 30%, and Apple will still maintain at least equal profit margins while enjoying vastly lower apparent prices.
It's usually pretty easy to point out a silver lining stemming some action or actions of any person or group which would otherwise not be typically viewed positively. I'm not saying Apple is in that category, but them helping bring down per-song pricing through iTunes doesn't translate into "their actions in other markets are positive for consumers." Apple saw their actions to be positive for Apple. The side effects are just that to them: side effects.
Apple has done things that are good for consumers, and they have done things that are bad for consumers.
The good behavior doesn't immediately render accusations of bad behavior irrelevant, and vice versa, so implying that it does and calling someone a moron regarding completely unconnected actions is ... less than civil, and certainly not anything resembling a rational argument.
Indirectly, yes, but the Internet was a latchkey kid for a long time until it became unexpectedly important (to be noticed by bureaucrats and bean counters).
My third sentence should have been clarification enough, since my second was otherwise ambiguous enough on its own to be interpreted that way.
The supply of a finite resource cannot be "corrected." Since the supply is fixed, the balance is made up in the price side of the equation (or would be, if they were obtainable on the open market).
I thought there was no such things as shortages in a free market
You need to stop using the source from which you got that definition. Nobody, pro- or anti- free market, also having two or more brain cells to rub together, would ever state a free market is supposed (or is claimed) to be free of shortages. There are various claims about how free markets affect short supplies vis-à-vis allocation and price, but not the they can turn a supply from limited to limitless. Any such claim is absurd.
*points above*
That was the entire point of my post. You can give the game its own little network world. It sees IPv4, and the host does the translation to and from. When configured correctly, as with any app that no longer conforms to current technology standards, the app has its own little bubble where everything works as expected even though the rest of the world has moved on.
It's called "tunneling." If you're playing those on a modern system capable of IPv6, the system can make the game see an IPv4 connection. It doesn't have to know the IPv4 connection is wrapped inside a v6 connection.
Business organizations, like politicians, are usually extraordinarily risk-averse. This touches both in many ways, across many countries. As a result, there won't be any serious pushes into IPv6 until organizations can clearly quantify the damages that will be done from dragging their feet further. Only a small percentage of organizations will fully commit to IPv6 until the guaranteed costs of waiting exceeds the projected costs of moving forward.
Nobody should have expected anything different once the internet became controlled predominantly by public political and private business interests.
That I would come closer to agreeing with. There are situations de-escalated through the display or non-injurious use of a firearm. However, there always exists the threat of deadly force, unlike many other "defense through offense" weapons. The minimum damage from use contact is much, much higher with a firearm, so in that regard I agree completely.
That's a 'wholly-owned subsidiary' so that there's no conflict of interest. *wink*
Oh, wait, we're past the point where that sort of thing is hidden. Yup, forgot the data mining team...
Not a contraction, since the omission is not internal. More likely it was first used as a sarcastic play on the original phrase, and then the tone was dropped by imitators who understood the form but not the function.
Such as various US Federal government websites. I'm not going to hold your hand through an issue that is incredibly complex so that you can just say "Nuh uh." There's more than one side to the issue, and it takes more time and space than a couple Slashdot posts to even come to an agreement on the groundwork for framing the discussion.
It's funny that you believe I worship at the altar of that poo-flinging monkey. Both sides do almost exactly the same thing though. They're right, anyone who is not in lockstep is wrong (even if only by pointing out that neither extreme has a lock on The One True Path).
Me, I happen to piss off both sides because I usually take the time to do my own research. Most people have to be lead by their little hand through it because they can't be bothered, and then get all pissy because a handful of barrels have holes in them or are painted the wrong color, and they immediately pick those out of the entire warehouse of barrels as evidence that the entire run is a screwed-up mess. I'm too tired for that right now. Have a nice day.
This has now been confirmed:
It's pretty clear where you stand. If that's truly the case, it's unlikely anything I post here will satisfy you.
I now point you back to this:
If you actually care, the information is pretty easily available from authoritative sources.
Oh my god for some mod points ... and a new keyboard ...
It's pretty clear where you stand. If that's truly the case, it's unlikely anything I post here will satisfy you. If you actually care, the information is pretty easily available from authoritative sources.
Short list:
FEHB
Education loan repayment
Continuing education
Unrivaled job security (20 firings per 100,000 workers non-defense)
Short hours
Flexible scheduling
Capless leave accrual
Top retirement benefits (unless you're a corporate exec)
There are exceptions, none of which are the norm. At upper levels, salaries exceed almost any private sector counterpart in addition to the benefits you will find in almost no other non-executive compensation package.
Interesting. So a $20,000/year raise is only a net increase of $83.33/month once you hit the 3rd tax bracket. Cool.
I did some fairly in-depth research about this topic a couple years back, and yes, in actual salary dollars public sector workers make less than their equally-educated counterparts in the private sector.
However, that discrepancy is made up for in the non-cash perks and benefits received by public sector employees, both long- and short-term. There are many public workers who will complain that they don't fit into that category, but on closer examination such protestations usually turns out to be far more perception than reality.
I'm not arguing for an across-the-board pay cut, just saying that the situation is anything but crystal clear from either side.
I don't feel like spending the next couple hours putting together examples and sources though, so feel free to claim lack of citation.
There are a number of MMOs that use PIN security mechanisms identical to this to defeat keyloggers. No reason why touchscreen devices can't easily implement it. It's not difficult or annoying after the first couple uses.
Well, yeah, but in those countries it doesn't matter what phone you have.
With stick-frame construction a door is still bolt-on security, even if it's a solid steel, multi-point locking door in a steel jamb.
There are countries I can think of where firearms are likely more dangerous than vehicles, but the US is not one of them.
From 1999 to 2007, the total motorized vehicle death rate was 14.76 per 100,000. The firearm death rate during the same period was 10.33 per 100,000. That said, I'm not sure it matters much. Each side will frame the numbers in ways that support their bias, and will argue endlessly over which comparison is "more accurate." In the end, the only quantifiable "fact" is that one kills people more often in relation to how many of them exist. Whether that is of import to any argument is another matter entirely.
The numbers are obtainable from the CDC NCIPC if anyone cares to verify them.
I wouldn't be surprised when the relevant statistics show that percentage wise, a lot more people get accidentally hurt by cars than by shotguns.
The wording of that is interestingly chosen, and also completely correct (at least if you replace "shogun" with "firearm"). There are roughly only 10% more vehicles per capita in the US than there are firearms per capita in the US. From 1999 to 2007, the overall death rate by firearm in the US was 10.33 per 100,000. During the same period, the overall death rate by motor vehicle was 14.76 per 100,000. 10% more vehicles, 43% more fatalities. If you remove the number of deaths (both categories) of 18-19 year olds who died as a result of being willfully and knowingly involved in violent criminal activity, and all those who committed suicide, the difference is even more starkly apparent.
Cars, like smartphones, are convenient. People overlook the negatives of those things that provide them with an opportunity to use the bare minimum effort to complete a given task more often than not.
It's not even the speed. It's the inertial delta of the bullet and [part of] the person.
FF on your computer should behave like FF on your phone and your tablet.
Yes and no. In general, consistency is a good thing. When you take consistency to an extreme across vastly different platforms though, you are working at the lowest common denominator. You have to remove any functionality that does poorly on any platform in order to get perfect consistency.
Leave in options that allow you to take advantage of platform-specific benefits. There's absolutely no downside to leaving customizable options in place, even if you change the default behavior. I'm perfectly fine with the status bar being removed by default, but removing the capability entirely for the user to keep that functionality has no arguable merit. It gives me another reason to not only avoid installing FireFox but to actively lobby against its deployment by others. I've always been strongly anti-IE, but I have to say, sadly, that IE now tops FireFox in my list of secondary browsers.
North of center is Libertarian area