I'm not sure animals would find it any easier to solve the captchas than we do :)

I was disappointed that the article wasn't split onto 8 different sub-pages needing me to hunt for the "print" option" to read it without adverts.

Mass Hysteria, Dogs and Cats living together, etc.

How, exactly, do enterprise apps degrade?

Do they suffer from bit-rot, and have some kind of half-life?

I understand that eventually apps will fail to be supported by the developers, won't potentially work on more modern operating systems, and in some cases require updating in order to be able to work correctly with the rest of the world.

But it's a bit disingenuous to call this "degradation". The app continues to do what it always did. You're just wanting more out of it than you did before. The app didn't change, you did.

Don't worry. Every cloud has a silver lining.

Wow. So there's a x in ten million chance (where x is the number of contacts you have minus 1) that it'll go to the wrong person. *

Stupid, but I don't think this is the problem being seen by so many people.

* - Or something like this. assuming entirely random distribution of numbers and all number combinations being valid and all phone numbers being same length.

Hate to say this, but your new iPhone is going to have a different UDID anyway. As long as your old phone is backed up and your new phone authorized to your itunes account, you shouldn't have any problems either way.

There's no reason why iOS have to send the genuine UDIDs to the app developer. If the app requests a UDID for the device, iOS should generate a key that is unique for that device AND THAT DEVELOPER.

So a developer can see if a user has (for example) used the previous 'free' version of their paid app, but these keys would be meaningless to other developers.

It may still be possible for developers to find out the UDID through unauthorized means, but then the developer would clearly be breaking Apple rules and is at risk of being kicked out of the appstore.

Jolyon

I should also point out for the sake of completeness that I do have google ads on my site as well, but to be honest they're proving pretty ineffective as a way of generating revenue, and I'll probably drop them.

> If the ads get too annoying I will tell my computer not to fetch them (blocking tools).

The honest thing to do, if you find the ads on a website too annoying, is not to visit that website again. If you continue to want to use the website in question but block the adverts, you're using a service they provide to you (at their cost) without in effect paying for it.

But publishers have to realise they can get what they want without intrusive advertising. It's only an arms race between advertisers to grab your attention if you give in to one advertiser's demands for uber-distracting animated crap, then all the other advertisers on your site will have to do the same. Sometimes you just have to say "No" to an advertising deal in order to do the right thing.

On my website which is supported by advertising, I'm pretty strict about how things work, small JPEG banners only (so no animation, flash, javascript or anything else), served from my server so no 3rd party tracking, and no adverts at all on the most important information pages. I could probably earn double what I earn now if I were to all the more intrusive type of adverts on my site. But only until my audience leave, which won't be long.

When the balance between advertisers and visitors is done right (which is what as a site publisher I've aimed for) you shouldn't get complaints about adverts, and people won't want to block them.

> Seriously, this is turning into a bad Oliver Stone movie.

As opposed to what other type of Oliver Stone movie, exactly?

>somebody should kill the bastard

Let me help fix the article for your benefit:

"The FBI believes that one third of the world's spam messages are being generated by one 23-year-old Russian man. Oleg Nikolaenko, also known by his alias Julian Assange, is being blamed for operating the Mega D botnet that sent spam emails from over 500,000 infected computers."

You should be shot for that comment!