Sounds kinda too in-the-box film-school-style thinking.
The key part of having a character the audience is able to relate to is the personality, having relatable motivations and such. How much of a difference does it make if they don't look human, maybe a bit to some, but probably not too much to many.
The magazine is not banned from the iPhone. It is banned from iOS.
Wouldn't it be more compact to carry around your phone and a spare battery rather than your phone and an mp3 player?
NYC subways for whatever reason seems to present a very different ecosystem than the rest of the country.
From looking around, you'd think that Sony PSP are absolutely dominating the Nintendo DS. However, in reality the DS has sold more than twice as many as the PSP.
On the other hand, it seems to me that a phone with a spare battery in your pocket is still smaller than a phone + a Gameboy or PSP.
In economics professor land what you say is true.
In the real world, people get upset and offended when they discover that the price differential between what they paid for something and what it cost to make is too large. It's not economically rational, it's just human nature.
I get tired of the "Get off my lawn, the past was so much better." No, not the case actually. Games are great these days. You can have graphics AND gameplay and indeed there are games that do. Name the kind of game you like, I can give you a few examples of ones that do it really well.M
Overall, I agree with your post, I do think it's mostly curmudgeonism. However, some truly great games of the past are in genres that are now effective dead.
Examples:
Star Control 2: Closest thing I can think of out now is Eve Online, which is totally not the same thing. Multiplayer is not always better, 3D is not always better, and Eve is completely lacking that adventure/epic story element.
XWing/Wing Commander: Action space sims just completely died, and I'm not really sure why. Seem like a gold mine to me.
I'm curious if anyone knows of any success stories of using this strategy with large animals.
It definitely seems to work on smaller scales, like buying praying mantis eggs to control garden pests. But I'm not sure I've ever heard of a success involving anything much bigger than that.
It'll take longer, but a gene that is truly neutral and confers no advantages will eventually be wrecked by mutations, like your vitamin C example. Mutations happens all the time, but if they hit something important, that individual won't survive for long. However, in the case of a gene coding for a neutral protein, mutations won't be corrected out, eventually causing the gene to no longer code for the same protein.
Is this for real? Wouldn't it be better to prefer to work with another platform that does not have to receive negative feedback in the first place? All companies and people make mistakes, but I don't recall any development platform that has made missteps this bad and drawn this much negative press in recent memory.
Also, you say, "That's why I prefer to work with iOS development, because they do listen to developers and take into account feedback or concerns, and really change fundamental policy instead of continuing said policy just because it exists as so many other companies would do..." Has there been any fundamental policy shift before today? If not, what were you saying prior to today on why you prefer to work with iOS development?
I think this line from the guidelines is pretty funny:
"If your app is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."
So basically, don't snitch.
To the contrary, however, in the past, it seems like running to the press and trashing them can really help get your app approved.
No, it's not thanks to legal precedent. Legal precedent is when a case establishes a rule that can be used in future cases, and is, in effect, creating a new law.
This is setting an example, where if you do something that screws over a lot of people in a very small way, you can't get away with it just because nobody is damaged enough to care. Instead, all the aggregated damages are counted together, and that tends to be enormous.
And it's not really that big a problem that 99% of the people in the class are too lazy to care they've been screwed. As long as they can get together a few people that care, and get lawyers to represent them, then they can bring a class action on behalf of all of them.
I see this sentiment a lot whenever class action lawsuits are discussed, but as a lawyer that has absolutely nothing to do with class action lawsuits, I would like to point out that one of the biggest purposes of class action lawsuits that people normally overlook when complaining about them is the deterrence effect.
Class action lawsuits are basically one of the most, if not the most, expensive form of litigation a company can endure. Even though due to the number of plaintiffs, in the end each person might only get a $10 gift card, the combined cost to the company of that are staggering.
In this case, it would be taking Sony to task, and hopefully Sony would see the error of its ways and back down. Even if that is not the eventual outcome, it sends a message to all the other bad guys out there, if you engage in this type of shenanigans, you should think twice because it will cost you dearly.
In a way, the lawyers who bring the suit are acting as private attorney generals, punishing wrong doing that may not rise to the criminal level, but affecting large swaths of the populace in a tortious fashion nonetheless. While no doubt the lawyers involve need to be incentivized to engage in this activity somehow, whether they should be rewarded as richly as they are for it currently is another issue entirely...
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
