Even if it's up to 2% desktop use, my argument still stands.

At $DAYJOB we don't really look at OSX or Linux because, even combined, they're such a tiny portion of the SMB market that even if we did invest the time to develop cross-platform, it wouldn't pay for the ongoing QA and support. (Plus we're a .NET shop and our product works with, although doesn't require, Active Directory, so the effort would be non-trivial for a less than ideal result)

I'm not a huge Linux fan myself, but I have a few Linux boxes that serve vital roles (with a bit of a fondness for Arch for non-production stuff). Still, I can't see running it as a primary desktop for anyone but a fan of Linux or in an extremely locked down environment.

I touched on that in another reply. Development isn't as significant but performing QA, building installers, upgrade/patch management and similar doesn't scale at all and must be done from scratch on each platform so the ROI needs to be significant.

Worse, how many Linux gamers don't have access to another supported platform already? What good is it if you pull off 1% of your sales on Linux if 90% of those were a lost sale on another platform?

*cough*Desktop*cough*

Developing cross-platform is likely not as expensive/difficult as it once was in terms of gaming, this is true. However, there's more than development. The packaging (digital or the digital components of the physical, including the installer, patch management system, etc), QA and other resources don't scale and require significant investments for additional platforms.

More important is the fact that although a larger than average percentage of Linux users might be gamers (and I've never seen any stats either way, although I'd guess it's likely based on my own sample size), I'd hazard a guess that a majority of those gamers are ready, willing and able to play on another platform too if a game isn't available on their preferred platform. So whether it's Windows, OSX or a console that they use, if a significant percentage of Linux sales are stolen from another platform, what's the point?

Less than 1% of the desktop market can't justify development for an entire alternate platform?

My point was that it's not as simple as it could or should be (for a typical end user) to have all of their photos saved somewhere safe in real time.

Photo Stream also shows up in a fairly obvious way on the device (in the same place as the photos themselves) and might be known to a police officer, so it would be a bit difficult to conceal, which in my mind, at least partially defeats the purpose.

On the other hand, it sounds like the next Dropbox version (and likely other apps, Qik might be one) will have the option to automatically upload all new photos upon launch, and continue doing so in the background, so as long as you have a bit of time between when you take a photo and when your device is confiscated, you can start the upload process with one touch of a button.

I rather like the idea of the cop not being aware of it, so that they feel they're free to lie on the police report without being aware that evidence is available. Nothing against cops, but if they're willing to cover up evidence and lie, the idea of making their lives more difficult makes me smile.

Except that photo stream only uploads via wifi, not 3G.

Whoever set the process in motion, as well as everyone who could have reasonably been expected to know that the evidence should be retained.

That sounds like a reasonable system. You just need to add destruction-of-evidence charges, or at least a court presumption that whoever destroyed the evidence did so to their benefit, and hence, the other party's sworn testimony should be used in place of the evidence.

In other words, if the police fail to retain evidence collected, assume that whatever the other party swears was captured is true.

If the police don't like it, they can retain the evidence.

These are all wifi-only solutions though, not 3G capable options.

Depending on your local law, you can likely use a common-law relationship to force companies to treat you as spouses when you desire. However, this whole area of law is complicated since companies may attempt to redefine common-law or spousal relationships to suit their own needs.

More complicated is the johnandmelinda@ type email addresses and other stupidity that less-techie types do without realizing how annoying this is to everyone else.

After 1-2 rounds of emailing "John" with a "Hey John, want to do $something on $differentdate instead of $originaldate" and getting back a "Sorry hun, John isn't home, this is Melinda" and never getting a reply from John at all, you simply cease interacting with either of them because together they're too stupid to be worth it.

However, it's not always feasible to drop such a joint asset immediately since it can take time to figure out all the places an email address is used.

More complicated is what to do with a shared account (Twitter or similar?) that might have followers or other assets that cannot be divided, and therefore has value beyond it's name. I'd argue that the answer is to simply dissolve such accounts completely, since the entity that created it no longer exists, but that's not always practical either.

While true, copyright is harder to implicitly transfer without compensation.

Complicating matters further is the fact that the library of data potentially contains data created before and after marriage, and assets held prior to the marriage are a bit more complicated to divide up.

Not only that, but if you plan your life around the possibility that a divorce might happen, you might just deal with your bullshit before it hits the divorce-is-better-than-this level.

Or maybe that's just me.

"pre-nap isn't defined yet". In fairness, that is entirely different from a prenuptial agreement.