so your solution doesn't really solve the problem with a case statement; it solves it with if-else, and then decorates it with a redundant case statement.
And chaining the ternary operator like that? Yikes.
That's your opinion. It stacks up well against the wishes of the founding fathers, NOT!
I never asserted that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. And the founding fathers never wandered around saying that people needed guns because it was the only thing keeping pretty girls from being sexually assaulted by the likes of you.
Our opinions aren't even in conflict.
The wishes of the founding fathers were to ensure the newfound nation could defend itself from the government/foreign governments. That sort of lofty goal means you need to have and be able to take up arms alongside your countrymen to defend the liberties that had been fought for and won. Rifles carefully locked away at home separate from ammunition is plenty for that.
It most certainly doesn't support the need to have a loaded pistol tucked into your sweatpants at Burger King in case someone tries to swipe a purse.
At least I can still use my first edition miniatures,
As long as they are on a current army list, and modeled with the same equipment you want them equipped with and painted using enough colours, and flocked...
As evidenced by several shooting now, a determined nutcase can mow dozens down before anyone can do anything, UNLESS THERE IS AN ARMED CITIZEN READY TO CONFRONT HIM!!!
And yet all the statistics show that "an armed citizen" is more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting than an unarmed one.
"The "good guy with a gun" approach is broken, Its like arguing that to avoid a mugging one should carry a grenade around with a deadman switch... sure the muggers will be more likely to back off, but you don't end up safer in the big picture.
"good guy with a gun" is just another another gun wandering around waiting to be taken by bad-guy-without-a-gun-until-he-got-yours, or good-guy-gets-angry-and-suddenly-isn't-good-guy-anymore, or good-guys-kids-aren't-as-responsible-as-good-guy-thought-and-now-he-has-one-less-to-worry-about.
Be smart - get a gun, and learn how to use it. Learn WHEN to use it. And, use it effectively.
Yup, leave it loaded within reach at all times. Its the only way to stand any chance the 'bad guy' doesn't get the jump on you. Of course, having a loaded gun accessible all the time... what could possibly go wrong?
Turns out a lot of things. Bad things. And these bad things things outnumber the times they do any good.
While that's true, part (maybe even most) of the "game" of Magic is deck construction. Not just the investment of buying the cards, but actually choosing what combinations of cards to build a deck with. Playing with a deck that you didn't build completely takes any fun out of the game.
I've got some 10s of thousands of cards. No idea really how many. Come over, we'll build decks, and we'll play. Cost to you 0. Competitive advantage to me for having a budget also 0. The fact that I don't have anything from the current block is irrelevant. That I have 2 of the P9 is irrelevant.
I also play draft, both from unopened sets/boosters, and even cheaper: "homemade repacks" -- that's "draft for free".
Or we'll do constructed with no rares. You can buy a complete common set x4 copies for any set for peanuts.
If you want to be the sanctioned world champion of magic then yeah its an investment. If you just want to play magic, there are any number of ways to create "fair" environments at any price point including pretty much free.
Its really pretty easy to separate the business of magic, from the game of magic, if you just want to play.
I'm pretty sure that the optimal strategy with Magic is just to wait until Wizards of the Coast is feeling a bit pinched and decides to release a new, more powerful, bunch of cards that you just can't stay competitive without buying and then go buy those...
Yes, and no. Mostly no.
You need to purchase the new cards because to be competitive, (as in participate in tournaments) you need to be using cards from the current block. The old cards, simply aren't permitted in the block.
(Although many old cards from various old sets are reprinted in the current set, and you can play with the originals of any reprinted card if you have the original.)
That effectively solves the power-inflation problem. This years set doesn't have to be more powerful than last years set to appeal to players because nobody is using last years set in competitions. That was, frankly, a very smart move by wotc for the overall health of the game.
Each year the game changes, but the cards aren't on a permanent run towards ever more power. They can even print cards that are strictly inferior to existing cards and those cards can still be desirable due to what is currently allowed.
Of course, yes, you do still have to buy this years set to play competitively which is a smart move from a business point of view. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to keep buying cards.
But pre-constructed is just one format, and there are many; draft games are quite popular where you build your deck on the fly from a pool of available cards (which can new unopened packs in sanctioned tournements, to one of your friends piles of commons in an informal setting... and then play with that. Many many players prefer various draft formats both in tournaments and in private because it does to a large degree eliminate having to buy the expensive rares to be competitive.
Also, one big impediment to socialization of health care in the US that is often glided over is that it would make doctors who entered practice and based their lifestyle (and their student loan payments) on the kind of income that an active solo or group practitioner makes suddenly get a rather significant pay cut in order to become a government employee.
Firstly a major shift like that going to take a couple decades to transition fully and doctors salaries aren't even remotely the prime target of the cost saving measures. They aren't going to get hit that badly, if at all, and they will cope just fine.
Secondly every law the government passes impacts on someone in the same way; its just not a valid excuse to block movement. The government launches a speed camera program and a bunch of people invest in manufacturing speed cameras... the public rebels and the politicians cancel speed cameras and then some entrepreneur who based his lifestyle and took out loans to invest in supplying, installing, and maintaining, speed cameras is sent scrambling.
Boeing doesn't get the expected contract for jetfighter engines because the government cuts funding, and bunch of highly paid highly skilled people who build jets, who bought homes, and took out loans, and set their lifestyle according to the expectation that they would be building jets... didn't just take a pay cut... but got laid off and now have to find something new to do... maybe even eventually taking much lower paid position.
When it happens to anyone else, we say "That's life."
It's treated like a utility? I'm not sure if that is supposed to make me feel better or not.
Better.
With a public utility it makes perfect sense to lose money to provide a service to group of people -- its ultimate objective is provide the service to everyone; it uses the profits it makes elsewhere to cover this loss, and it sets prices at the point it needs to essentially break even.*
With a business that makes no sense, instead of you just cut off the service to the people its not profitable to serve, and therefore make more profit on the people it is profitable to serve. The core objective of a business is to make profits; it provides services to those it is profitable to serve, and it sets prices according to what the market will bear.
The "public utility" approach or model is indisputably better at approaching large social needs like police protection, military, electricity and clean water, and so forth where you want to provide the service to everyone.
* - the only problem with a public utility is that they tend to be monopololies and suffer from inefficiencies that would be pared away in a competitive market. This leads to higher prices than should theoretically be attainable.
However, the inefficiencies are an acceptable trade-off in my opinion, as long as they are kept in reasonable check. Socialized healthcare that costs society a little to much due to inefficiency is better than the costs to society of a private health care system run by businesses are who are only interested in insuring people who are healthy, and doctors who prefer treat patients relative to how much money they have.
The RT is notable for its better battery life too. Depending on the circumstances its the right option for the right person... not me personally, and probably not here in the slashdot echo chamber... but it would probably be the right choice for my mom.
The limiting factor is that it requires people's time.
Playing the devil's advocate here: the limiting factor of surveillance used to be that it required peoples time. Then they automated it. Now we have cameras everywhere in public recording everything. And they told -us- that it didn't violate our privacy and that it was the same thing.
So I kind of think the turnaround is fair play.
On the other hand aren't most effective DDoS attacks run by botnets... meaning the resources being used to conduct the 'protest' are effectively stolen. I don't see how a case for that being legal would ever work.
Because the people surrounding you, in your circles of work and socialising, will tend to be a bit like you.
Which is why i mentioned an industry I'm in: cellular. I see and work with a lot people. The client base is from all walks of life.
But you're not accounting for the people in entirely different kinds of work, of radically different ages,
I repeat myself: The client base I'm drawing my observation from is all walks of life. Plumbers. Retired people. Young families. Real estate agents. Firefighters. Fishermen. Asians, East Indians, Iranians, Joe Sixpack, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
working in countries other than your own
Most of Apple's sales and profits are in the States, so the fact that my observations aren't reflecting what people in Uganda do with iphones isn't really relevant to THIS particular conversation.
But disbelieving a stat because it doesn't match your own experience is wrong-headed.
Thank you captain obvious. I never said anywhere that I don't beleive apples total revenues are 10$Billion, nor have i said that I don't beleive that they have hit 40$billion downloads. I said that i didn't beleive 1 in 4 downloads was paid, and was skeptical that even 1 in 20 downloads was paid.
But nobody ever provided any data suggesting that those were in fact the rates. I merely speculated on some average app prices for paid apps, did the math, and noted that the numbers did not jive with my experience.
But while the conclusion did not line up with my expectations, no one had ever asserted that the conclusion was in fact true, so disbelieving is hardly irrationally refuting a "properly researched study".
That said my followup digging around confirms that yes, that $10Billion revenue includes in app purchases, and that in-app purchases are in the billions, and are claimed by some to be more profitable than paid apps.
That lets us model things a bit differently and brings the ratio of paid apps to free apps in those download statistics far lower, if half the revenue is accounted by in-app purchases.
That could bring us to the ballpark of as few as 1 in 50 apps downloaded being paid apps, which is a lot more plausible.
Apple's users don't mind paying for getting something with better quality.
What is that supposed to mean? I am an apple user. The people I'm drawing for data points are all apple users. They aren't paying for apps.
That's the major reason why, despite the larger numbers of Android phones, developers prefer the iOS platform.
The major reason its preferred is that it has a large install base and there is really only all of one model of phone to target "the new one"; and its probably the phone the developer owns too. That makes it easy.
despite the larger numbers of Android phones,
There are androids and then there are androids. The "total number" of androids is pretty meaningless when comparing the two market places, except as a starting point to identify what percentage of androids are upmarket.
Meanwhile, last years iphones are free on contracts; so they are being picked up by more downmarket users whose pricepoint is "free" as well; although these are still users in contracts which are generally more spendy then the pay-as-you go group.
Sure, and there will be other people like you. And then there will be people who are not like you. People tend to overestimate the number of people that are similar to themselves.
True enough, but I know a LOT of iphone users -- one of the companies I work with is a cell phone dealer -- and no one I know of has more than one or two paid apps. Most have none at all. They all have a few free apps... many of them have downloaded dozens of free apps.
As an aside, i read today that over 50% of the developer revenue goes to just 25 developers.
I have one issue with your counter argument: Its not true.
Just look any major bridge. It takes the people working on it months. And each project entails creativity and unique challenges. It takes months or even years to build it, and even the architects and engineers who designed it... they all get paid exactly once. Regardless how useful it is, or how many people use it.
Tell me again what makes a programmer or author different?
There are people who are incapable of learning from other humans regardless how good the teacher is.
Agree, but your tangent about autists and high tech is just that: something of a tangent.
A good teacher who knows their material and can see where their students are is still going to be ineffective at teaching a student who, in your own words is "incapable of learning from other humans regardless how good the teacher is".
The whole point of SSL is that it connects only to the server you requested, and encrypts the data so only that server can see it.
Not if you are using remote desktop. Then everything you do is sent via the RDP protocol to the browser on the terminal server, and then from there it is sent to the remote server.
These phone mini "proxy" browsers are really not much different than using a "published application" from a terminal server.
Do you really think that Joe Sixpack has read Nokia's website before he logs into his bank?
How many people do you think have used a terminal or other remote session to access an ssl site without really thinking that everything was effectively being proxied through the company terminal servers, and that all their credentials and personal data and anything else that crossed the browser screen could easily be captured and logged by the company?
an someone please explain a scenario, especially when this is voluntarily opt out, where this is a bad thing for people?
Imagine an attractive girl. Now put a tracking device on her. Now give access to the tracking device to the sort of people who work low level park security and maintenance jobs who would consider getting a job harassing people for the TSA as career advancement.
Really, its hard imagine something creepy is not going to happen.
You must have really cheaped out to get a "toy" guitar without a tuner.
He's 8. We'll see if he has any interest in learning a musical instrument or not before buying something decent.
Besides, a decent chromatic tuner is about $30 in Australia (so it's probably cheaper where you live). If you wasted more than 1 hour of your time on free apps, you lost money.
Not sure where you would go to buy a guitar tuner on Christmas morning, and I value staying away from the mall on boxing day at more than $30... and really... I probably spent close to an hour tuning the guitar the first time, including trying the apps, and the fact that it was WAY out of tune, while the follow up tuning has mostly been comparatively minor adjustments. 1/4 to 1/2 turn rather than 5 turns...
Beyond this, you wont find a decent tuner application on a phone because the microphone on a phone is made for the frequency range of the human voice
Thanks that's quite interesting really and the limits of the mic make sense. But I was actually able to get more than passable results from the free apps.
The fact that you can easily validate tuning of a given string relative to the other strings by ear helps. So once one or two strings are right, it gets pretty easy.
To properly tune a guitar you need test both the open and 12th fret, so on the top E string that's E4 at 330Hz and E5 at 659Hz.
Like I said he's 8. If his interest in guitars and music is not long forgotten by his birthday we'll consider investing in a better product, and even professional lessons instead of what I can remember of guitar from high school, and the piano I took as a kid myself.:)
And suggests ~$10 billion in revenue; assuming $1 per download, that suggests 1 out of 4 downloads was paid. Even at $5 per download that suggests 1 in 20 downloads was paid. I find even that hard to beleive.
Especially given how many people I know that spend a large amount of their free time downloading free apps, messing with them for 10 minutes, and then deleting them.
Hell, that's even how I approach mobile apps. For example I bought my son a "toy guitar" for christmas; it pretty much needs constant tuning. so I went through 7 or 8 different free guitar tuning apps before finding one I liked.
I'd have thought that sort of thing would have been the largest portion of downloads. Alongside the big ones... twitter, facebook, instagram, does groupon have an app (?), netflix, etc, etc... and that stuff is also all free.
I've got to believe that they are including in app purchases and so on to get up to those final totals.
It is man portable in that a man could carry it around. I don't dispute the rest of your notes, but that really is beside the point.
There are a number of other conventional man portable weapons that can't be "run and gun" operated; but need to be "setup" on tripods and/or require spotters to use.
as for being secret... owning fissionable material is hardly expected under the 2nd amendment due hazard of simply storing and maintaining it.
Its not a 2nd amendment issue at all really.
This seems to be an argument where you've drawn an arbitrary line and said essentially "this is too hazardous for you to have so you can't have it" no matter what.
Any number of conventional materials are pretty nasty, and its not particularly hard to create all manner of toxic, noxious, acidic, corrosive clouds of nastiness. What makes owning something that is radioactive inherently special?
You could, theorettically, buy the materials needed on the open market in the form of uranium meant for reactors
Not under the current system; you can't just buy reactor fuel on the open market.
It is poisonous, radioactive, and it takes about 130 lbs of refined uranium to get 1 lb of fissionable "Little Boy" material, and 140 lbs of THAT to make a single bomb.
The "Davy Crockett" man portable nuclear device had rounds that weighed under 80 lbs, that's the nuke, casing, propulsion system, all in.
Either case, you are talking a project with hundreds of specialists and huge material costs... try keeping that a secret, Tony Stark.
Why would it be a secret? If it were legal to own the stuff, it wouldn't be.
And for the limitation of carrying them, it says right there in the 2nd Amendment: Right to bear arms.
So they could use cavalry horses because they aren't "weapons platforms"?
But the well trained militia envisioned by the founding fathers was prohibited from owning canons because they weren't man-portable?
And yet private merchant ships could be and frequently were armed with privately owned canons?
I seem to vaguely recall even that congress could give private owners of such vessels letters of Marque... yes there it is in Article 1 of the constitution.
It seems that private citizens were perfectly within their rights to not only own canons, but entire warships too...
I said the goal should be to look for the most efficient way of paying for it; and don't think the current way is necessarily it.
I am all for motivating companies to do less damage to the roads. But that sounds like changing the tax and/or regulatory framework... which is hardly "very free market" either.
Slashdot Mirror
Ow! my eye!
But technically
x ? y : u ? v : w
is just shorthand for
if (x) {y} else if (u) {v} else {w}
so your solution doesn't really solve the problem with a case statement; it solves it with if-else, and then decorates it with a redundant case statement.
And chaining the ternary operator like that? Yikes.
That's your opinion. It stacks up well against the wishes of the founding fathers, NOT!
I never asserted that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. And the founding fathers never wandered around saying that people needed guns because it was the only thing keeping pretty girls from being sexually assaulted by the likes of you.
Our opinions aren't even in conflict.
The wishes of the founding fathers were to ensure the newfound nation could defend itself from the government/foreign governments. That sort of lofty goal means you need to have and be able to take up arms alongside your countrymen to defend the liberties that had been fought for and won. Rifles carefully locked away at home separate from ammunition is plenty for that.
It most certainly doesn't support the need to have a loaded pistol tucked into your sweatpants at Burger King in case someone tries to swipe a purse.
At least I can still use my first edition miniatures,
As long as they are on a current army list, and modeled with the same equipment you want them equipped with and painted using enough colours, and flocked...
Sanctioned GW events can be pretty anal.
As evidenced by several shooting now, a determined nutcase can mow dozens down before anyone can do anything, UNLESS THERE IS AN ARMED CITIZEN READY TO CONFRONT HIM!!!
And yet all the statistics show that "an armed citizen" is more likely to be involved in a fatal shooting than an unarmed one.
"The "good guy with a gun" approach is broken, Its like arguing that to avoid a mugging one should carry a grenade around with a deadman switch... sure the muggers will be more likely to back off, but you don't end up safer in the big picture.
"good guy with a gun" is just another another gun wandering around waiting to be taken by bad-guy-without-a-gun-until-he-got-yours, or good-guy-gets-angry-and-suddenly-isn't-good-guy-anymore, or good-guys-kids-aren't-as-responsible-as-good-guy-thought-and-now-he-has-one-less-to-worry-about.
Be smart - get a gun, and learn how to use it. Learn WHEN to use it. And, use it effectively.
Yup, leave it loaded within reach at all times. Its the only way to stand any chance the 'bad guy' doesn't get the jump on you. Of course, having a loaded gun accessible all the time... what could possibly go wrong?
Turns out a lot of things. Bad things. And these bad things things outnumber the times they do any good.
While that's true, part (maybe even most) of the "game" of Magic is deck construction. Not just the investment of buying the cards, but actually choosing what combinations of cards to build a deck with. Playing with a deck that you didn't build completely takes any fun out of the game.
I've got some 10s of thousands of cards. No idea really how many. Come over, we'll build decks, and we'll play. Cost to you 0. Competitive advantage to me for having a budget also 0. The fact that I don't have anything from the current block is irrelevant. That I have 2 of the P9 is irrelevant.
I also play draft, both from unopened sets/boosters, and even cheaper: "homemade repacks" -- that's "draft for free".
Or we'll do constructed with no rares. You can buy a complete common set x4 copies for any set for peanuts.
If you want to be the sanctioned world champion of magic then yeah its an investment. If you just want to play magic, there are any number of ways to create "fair" environments at any price point including pretty much free.
Its really pretty easy to separate the business of magic, from the game of magic, if you just want to play.
I'm pretty sure that the optimal strategy with Magic is just to wait until Wizards of the Coast is feeling a bit pinched and decides to release a new, more powerful, bunch of cards that you just can't stay competitive without buying and then go buy those...
Yes, and no. Mostly no.
You need to purchase the new cards because to be competitive, (as in participate in tournaments) you need to be using cards from the current block. The old cards, simply aren't permitted in the block.
(Although many old cards from various old sets are reprinted in the current set, and you can play with the originals of any reprinted card if you have the original.)
That effectively solves the power-inflation problem. This years set doesn't have to be more powerful than last years set to appeal to players because nobody is using last years set in competitions. That was, frankly, a very smart move by wotc for the overall health of the game.
Each year the game changes, but the cards aren't on a permanent run towards ever more power. They can even print cards that are strictly inferior to existing cards and those cards can still be desirable due to what is currently allowed.
Of course, yes, you do still have to buy this years set to play competitively which is a smart move from a business point of view. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to keep buying cards.
But pre-constructed is just one format, and there are many; draft games are quite popular where you build your deck on the fly from a pool of available cards (which can new unopened packs in sanctioned tournements, to one of your friends piles of commons in an informal setting... and then play with that. Many many players prefer various draft formats both in tournaments and in private because it does to a large degree eliminate having to buy the expensive rares to be competitive.
Also, one big impediment to socialization of health care in the US that is often glided over is that it would make doctors who entered practice and based their lifestyle (and their student loan payments) on the kind of income that an active solo or group practitioner makes suddenly get a rather significant pay cut in order to become a government employee.
Firstly a major shift like that going to take a couple decades to transition fully and doctors salaries aren't even remotely the prime target of the cost saving measures. They aren't going to get hit that badly, if at all, and they will cope just fine.
Secondly every law the government passes impacts on someone in the same way; its just not a valid excuse to block movement. The government launches a speed camera program and a bunch of people invest in manufacturing speed cameras... the public rebels and the politicians cancel speed cameras and then some entrepreneur who based his lifestyle and took out loans to invest in supplying, installing, and maintaining, speed cameras is sent scrambling.
Boeing doesn't get the expected contract for jetfighter engines because the government cuts funding, and bunch of highly paid highly skilled people who build jets, who bought homes, and took out loans, and set their lifestyle according to the expectation that they would be building jets... didn't just take a pay cut... but got laid off and now have to find something new to do... maybe even eventually taking much lower paid position.
When it happens to anyone else, we say "That's life."
It's treated like a utility? I'm not sure if that is supposed to make me feel better or not.
Better.
With a public utility it makes perfect sense to lose money to provide a service to group of people -- its ultimate objective is provide the service to everyone; it uses the profits it makes elsewhere to cover this loss, and it sets prices at the point it needs to essentially break even.*
With a business that makes no sense, instead of you just cut off the service to the people its not profitable to serve, and therefore make more profit on the people it is profitable to serve. The core objective of a business is to make profits; it provides services to those it is profitable to serve, and it sets prices according to what the market will bear.
The "public utility" approach or model is indisputably better at approaching large social needs like police protection, military, electricity and clean water, and so forth where you want to provide the service to everyone.
* - the only problem with a public utility is that they tend to be monopololies and suffer from inefficiencies that would be pared away in a competitive market. This leads to higher prices than should theoretically be attainable.
However, the inefficiencies are an acceptable trade-off in my opinion, as long as they are kept in reasonable check. Socialized healthcare that costs society a little to much due to inefficiency is better than the costs to society of a private health care system run by businesses are who are only interested in insuring people who are healthy, and doctors who prefer treat patients relative to how much money they have.
The RT is notable for its better battery life too. Depending on the circumstances its the right option for the right person... not me personally, and probably not here in the slashdot echo chamber... but it would probably be the right choice for my mom.
The limiting factor is that it requires people's time.
Playing the devil's advocate here: the limiting factor of surveillance used to be that it required peoples time. Then they automated it. Now we have cameras everywhere in public recording everything. And they told -us- that it didn't violate our privacy and that it was the same thing.
So I kind of think the turnaround is fair play.
On the other hand aren't most effective DDoS attacks run by botnets... meaning the resources being used to conduct the 'protest' are effectively stolen. I don't see how a case for that being legal would ever work.
Because the people surrounding you, in your circles of work and socialising, will tend to be a bit like you.
Which is why i mentioned an industry I'm in: cellular. I see and work with a lot people. The client base is from all walks of life.
But you're not accounting for the people in entirely different kinds of work, of radically different ages,
I repeat myself: The client base I'm drawing my observation from is all walks of life. Plumbers. Retired people. Young families. Real estate agents. Firefighters. Fishermen. Asians, East Indians, Iranians, Joe Sixpack, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
working in countries other than your own
Most of Apple's sales and profits are in the States, so the fact that my observations aren't reflecting what people in Uganda do with iphones isn't really relevant to THIS particular conversation.
But disbelieving a stat because it doesn't match your own experience is wrong-headed.
Thank you captain obvious. I never said anywhere that I don't beleive apples total revenues are 10$Billion, nor have i said that I don't beleive that they have hit 40$billion downloads. I said that i didn't beleive 1 in 4 downloads was paid, and was skeptical that even 1 in 20 downloads was paid.
But nobody ever provided any data suggesting that those were in fact the rates. I merely speculated on some average app prices for paid apps, did the math, and noted that the numbers did not jive with my experience.
But while the conclusion did not line up with my expectations, no one had ever asserted that the conclusion was in fact true, so disbelieving is hardly irrationally refuting a "properly researched study".
That said my followup digging around confirms that yes, that $10Billion revenue includes in app purchases, and that in-app purchases are in the billions, and are claimed by some to be more profitable than paid apps.
That lets us model things a bit differently and brings the ratio of paid apps to free apps in those download statistics far lower, if half the revenue is accounted by in-app purchases.
That could bring us to the ballpark of as few as 1 in 50 apps downloaded being paid apps, which is a lot more plausible.
It's mistaking anecdote for data.
In this case no mistake of that kind was made.
But the developer of a bridge, who creates it for himself and owns it, keeps on getting paid tolls.
But the ENTIRE point of the post i was responding too was that the so-called creative people were somehow different from regular workers.
What you are describing just proves my point. The people reaping the perpetual reward in this case aren't the creative ones at all.
Apple's users don't mind paying for getting something with better quality.
What is that supposed to mean? I am an apple user. The people I'm drawing for data points are all apple users. They aren't paying for apps.
That's the major reason why, despite the larger numbers of Android phones, developers prefer the iOS platform.
The major reason its preferred is that it has a large install base and there is really only all of one model of phone to target "the new one"; and its probably the phone the developer owns too. That makes it easy.
despite the larger numbers of Android phones,
There are androids and then there are androids. The "total number" of androids is pretty meaningless when comparing the two market places, except as a starting point to identify what percentage of androids are upmarket.
Meanwhile, last years iphones are free on contracts; so they are being picked up by more downmarket users whose pricepoint is "free" as well; although these are still users in contracts which are generally more spendy then the pay-as-you go group.
Sure, and there will be other people like you. And then there will be people who are not like you. People tend to overestimate the number of people that are similar to themselves.
True enough, but I know a LOT of iphone users -- one of the companies I work with is a cell phone dealer -- and no one I know of has more than one or two paid apps. Most have none at all. They all have a few free apps... many of them have downloaded dozens of free apps.
As an aside, i read today that over 50% of the developer revenue goes to just 25 developers.
I have one issue with your counter argument: Its not true.
Just look any major bridge. It takes the people working on it months. And each project entails creativity and unique challenges. It takes months or even years to build it, and even the architects and engineers who designed it... they all get paid exactly once. Regardless how useful it is, or how many people use it.
Tell me again what makes a programmer or author different?
There are people who are incapable of learning from other humans regardless how good the teacher is.
Agree, but your tangent about autists and high tech is just that: something of a tangent.
A good teacher who knows their material and can see where their students are is still going to be ineffective at teaching a student who, in your own words is "incapable of learning from other humans regardless how good the teacher is".
And this is why it was cancelled i think.
The whole point of SSL is that it connects only to the server you requested, and encrypts the data so only that server can see it.
Not if you are using remote desktop. Then everything you do is sent via the RDP protocol to the browser on the terminal server, and then from there it is sent to the remote server.
These phone mini "proxy" browsers are really not much different than using a "published application" from a terminal server.
Do you really think that Joe Sixpack has read Nokia's website before he logs into his bank?
How many people do you think have used a terminal or other remote session to access an ssl site without really thinking that everything was effectively being proxied through the company terminal servers, and that all their credentials and personal data and anything else that crossed the browser screen could easily be captured and logged by the company?
an someone please explain a scenario, especially when this is voluntarily opt out, where this is a bad thing for people?
Imagine an attractive girl.
Now put a tracking device on her.
Now give access to the tracking device to the sort of people who work low level park security and maintenance jobs who would consider getting a job harassing people for the TSA as career advancement.
Really, its hard imagine something creepy is not going to happen.
that sounds like a win-win.
Doesn't it though!?
You must have really cheaped out to get a "toy" guitar without a tuner.
He's 8. We'll see if he has any interest in learning a musical instrument or not before buying something decent.
Besides, a decent chromatic tuner is about $30 in Australia (so it's probably cheaper where you live). If you wasted more than 1 hour of your time on free apps, you lost money.
Not sure where you would go to buy a guitar tuner on Christmas morning, and I value staying away from the mall on boxing day at more than $30... and really... I probably spent close to an hour tuning the guitar the first time, including trying the apps, and the fact that it was WAY out of tune, while the follow up tuning has mostly been comparatively minor adjustments. 1/4 to 1/2 turn rather than 5 turns...
Beyond this, you wont find a decent tuner application on a phone because the microphone on a phone is made for the frequency range of the human voice
Thanks that's quite interesting really and the limits of the mic make sense. But I was actually able to get more than passable results from the free apps.
The fact that you can easily validate tuning of a given string relative to the other strings by ear helps. So once one or two strings are right, it gets pretty easy.
To properly tune a guitar you need test both the open and 12th fret, so on the top E string that's E4 at 330Hz and E5 at 659Hz.
Like I said he's 8. If his interest in guitars and music is not long forgotten by his birthday we'll consider investing in a better product, and even professional lessons instead of what I can remember of guitar from high school, and the piano I took as a kid myself. :)
And suggests ~$10 billion in revenue; assuming $1 per download, that suggests 1 out of 4 downloads was paid. Even at $5 per download that suggests 1 in 20 downloads was paid. I find even that hard to beleive.
Especially given how many people I know that spend a large amount of their free time downloading free apps, messing with them for 10 minutes, and then deleting them.
Hell, that's even how I approach mobile apps. For example I bought my son a "toy guitar" for christmas; it pretty much needs constant tuning. so I went through 7 or 8 different free guitar tuning apps before finding one I liked.
I'd have thought that sort of thing would have been the largest portion of downloads. Alongside the big ones ... twitter, facebook, instagram, does groupon have an app (?), netflix, etc, etc... and that stuff is also all free.
I've got to believe that they are including in app purchases and so on to get up to those final totals.
"he didn't mention Boldrine and Levine at all as a source of anti-copyright theory."
vs
"Boldrin and Levine present good arguments that patents..."
And the wisdom in RMS's half page into about why he likes to keep discussions of copyright and patents entirely separate becomes apparent.
It was not man portable
It is man portable in that a man could carry it around. I don't dispute the rest of your notes, but that really is beside the point.
There are a number of other conventional man portable weapons that can't be "run and gun" operated; but need to be "setup" on tripods and/or require spotters to use.
as for being secret... owning fissionable material is hardly expected under the 2nd amendment due hazard of simply storing and maintaining it.
Its not a 2nd amendment issue at all really.
This seems to be an argument where you've drawn an arbitrary line and said essentially "this is too hazardous for you to have so you can't have it" no matter what.
Any number of conventional materials are pretty nasty, and its not particularly hard to create all manner of toxic, noxious, acidic, corrosive clouds of nastiness. What makes owning something that is radioactive inherently special?
You could, theorettically, buy the materials needed on the open market in the form of uranium meant for reactors
Not under the current system; you can't just buy reactor fuel on the open market.
It is poisonous, radioactive, and it takes about 130 lbs of refined uranium to get 1 lb of fissionable "Little Boy" material, and 140 lbs of THAT to make a single bomb.
The "Davy Crockett" man portable nuclear device had rounds that weighed under 80 lbs, that's the nuke, casing, propulsion system, all in.
Either case, you are talking a project with hundreds of specialists and huge material costs... try keeping that a secret, Tony Stark.
Why would it be a secret? If it were legal to own the stuff, it wouldn't be.
And for the limitation of carrying them, it says right there in the 2nd Amendment: Right to bear arms.
So they could use cavalry horses because they aren't "weapons platforms"?
But the well trained militia envisioned by the founding fathers was prohibited from owning canons because they weren't man-portable?
And yet private merchant ships could be and frequently were armed with privately owned canons?
I seem to vaguely recall even that congress could give private owners of such vessels letters of Marque... yes there it is in Article 1 of the constitution.
It seems that private citizens were perfectly within their rights to not only own canons, but entire warships too...
I said the goal should be to look for the most efficient way of paying for it; and don't think the current way is necessarily it.
I am all for motivating companies to do less damage to the roads. But that sounds like changing the tax and/or regulatory framework... which is hardly "very free market" either.