There are far, far more Android users, so even if each one spends less that doesn't mean you will make less money in the long run. Also, if you are developing apps for developing nations, good luck selling many copies on iOS.

Unfortunately we don't have stats broken down by country. I bet they would paint a very different picture though.

Your first link also shows that 90% of iOS apps are free. Clearly most developers think the right price for their apps is $0.

You are also missing the fact that while on average Android user spend less, there are a lot more of them. The ones in developing countries probably drag the numbers down a lot. It would be interesting to see stats for just Europe, say. Also, those developing nations are only going to spend more and more over time, which is why Apple is desperately trying to break into China.

Apple actively encouraged developers to target specific resolutions, especially in the early days when the hardware was quite weak. In order for everything to look good they told developers to create graphics for the iPhone and later iPad's specific resolution.

That's why when later models with better screens came out they preferred to exactly doubled the resolution when possible. All those apps written for the old resolution then at least scaled 2:1 and only looked as bad as they did on the old low resolution screens. When widescreen finally came along they letterboxed apps because so many of them didn't scale properly.

It's all because the original iPhone and iPad hardware was pretty low end, so in order to make everything move smoothly and apps look slick they went with monotasking and UIs developed for specific screens. Don't forget that the 1st gen hardware was a Samsung single core CPU running at 400MHz with a mere 128MB of RAM.

Android went with device and resolution independence from day one, and although that meant that early devices were a bit clunky compared to iOS it has paid off in the long run.

CR was also useful for double-printing. When you ribbon was worn out you could just rewind it and re-use it, but have the printer overwrite every line so each character was printed twice, giving you about 80% as much ink as a new ribbon would provide.

That's not a very good test. You can run more than one copy of Firefox, but only if you hack around making sure that they don't use the same profile directory etc. In other words, the default install doesn't support multiple concurrent versions running at the same time.

Same with Chrome. Same with Safari. None of them support portable mode with separate profiles and the ability to run multiple copies at once. In fact Firefox used to fail to run if it noticed "firefox.exe" was already running, so you couldn't even run the installed version along side the portable one, or multiple portable installations.

IE is fairly well separated now. Explorer uses a separate HTML engine that is much more limited than IE. Updates for the Windows core HTML engine and IE are separate. You don't need to upgrade IE to keep your Windows installation secure any more.

Seems like a lot of effort. I just get a serial cable and press my tongue against the TX pin. Then type "copy COM1:" on the source machine and open up Notepad on the target. By hovering my hand over the keyboard on the target the little electrical shocks from the serial port cause spasms that make my hand type the file out. It's slow and painful but some people like that.

Get a genuine FTDI USB serial port, or better still a real hardware serial port. They still make them on PCI-E cards, and they work just as well as the old ones even at high speeds.

Having said that, the OP states his laptop has a serial port so it should be no problem to run it at 256 kbaud or above with a little error correction and a reasonable quality cable.

On the other hand if people know that Facebook is watching them this way they may be less likely to contact friends to talk about their problems, so it could actually have the effect of isolating people even more.

Facebook is not a good way to prevent suicide.

The allegation that she does this habitually or is otherwise unfit / didn't get her position on merit is also an opinion.

It'a also interesting that you accuse me of name calling, when in fact I did no such thing. You mention the patriarchy - YOU mention it, not me. You are reading all sorts of stuff that just isn't there.

I've looked into her past, it doesn't seem "sketchy" at all. There is a lot of innuendo, but when you actually examine what has happened it all evaporates.

Explain what about her current lawsuit is unreasonable or "sketchy". From the coverage it seems reasonable, based on systematic bias and inappropriate behaviour. Let's see what the outcome is.

They already have rules against other types of copyright infringement. They don't tolerate boards where people post nothing but magnet links to pirate content, for example.

To be fair though the transparency in Windows Vista/7 isn't just an alpha value, it's a pixel shader that blurs the background by gathering a number of pixels and averaging them, then overlaying a glass reflection effect and finally the window content. It has a cost in terms of energy required for processing, even if video RAM and processing speed is no longer an issue.

I expect the effect on battery life is minimal, but I guess it depends how often your workflow causes it to re-render.

The key achievement here is that the AI was able to learn the game on its own in a relatively short time. Imagine if you had an industrial robot that could learn how to do tasks on its own and then modify its behaviour if the situation changed, and generally cope with a variety of situations.

Also, they called it DQN which means "dumbass" in Japanese, so bonus points for that.

The modern flat look can look good, but only if your UI is simple to begin with. I'm actually surprised that more Slashdot users aren't enjoying it when it works, because they complain bitterly about Ribbon interfaces and the like.

Look at Google's Android apps. Most have two or three icons on screen at most, so can get away with simple bold layouts and minimal graphics. The usually have a menu icon that opens a text menu, rather than a ribbon or some other graphical list that requires you to understand what the symbols mean. Same with Chrome, a few minimal icons and flat UI with lots of text when you open things up.

Microsoft fails because Windows uses a huge variety of icons, with many of them on screen at once, and often doesn't have text to accompany them. In Explorer, for example, you have file names but the icons themselves convey a lot of information (file/folder/shortcut/drive, type of file. selected/not selected etc.) and so need to be complex and easy to interpret visually.