This is really interesting stuff.
Can you tell me the name of your band? I'd like to hear your music!
This is really interesting stuff.
Can you tell me the name of your band? I'd like to hear your music!
And I'll end up reiterating stuff already in my reply: because in the short term, you want to cater to the people that are spending money, and it's useful to know what devices they're using for that. Maybe you should be providing an app if you want to encourage people to buy more. Or perhaps if you know what kind of device is being used, you can modify your site to be friendlier to them. Or, even more simplistically, if you know I'm ordering on an iPad, maybe you want to offer some iPad accessories to me before I hit the checkout.
To date, all pieces of evidence point towards iOS users being more willing or more able to spend money on their mobile devices, whether you're talking about apps or online sales like this. In general, it's probably easier to get people willing to spend money to spend a little more rather than trying to get someone who doesn't want to make these purchases to spend at all.
More data means more money.
It's important because money is involved, basically.
If you're trying to advertise and encourage people to buy stuff, it makes sense to know who's going to buy things and how they're willing to buy them.
I like buying things on my iPad or iPhone from sites like Amazon. The experience is good and there's not much hassle. I spend almost no time at my home desktop machine now that I have an iPad, so if Amazon puts more money into the iPad user experience, it benefits people like me and apparently has a return on investment because I'm not alone in being willing to buy stuff from them from my mobile device.
It's also interesting. Why is this happening? Is it because there are people like me that are now 'post-PC'? Are those people more likely to be iOS users? Also, I bought my Mom an iPad mini last Christmas, and I bet a lot of other tech-ish people did the same or similar just to save themselves tech-support hassles. So people like my Mom that aren't super good with tech might now be doing shopping on their favourite web device, and those people may disproportionately fall in the iOS camp.
It'd be interesting to know. Are you really not curious at all? It doesn't have to be an iOS vs. Android thing, really. There's clearly a dichotomy, but there's no value judgement to be made unless you're really invested in being partisan about it.
In the end, this benefits Android users as well. This is more a matter of who to target first, but a properly constructed mobile site is good for everyone with a mobile device.
I like how everyone takes this rumour as EXTREMELY credible, like this is definitely what we're getting next year. Apple works on lots of stuff. They've probably been working with the ergonomics of curved screens in mockups for years, but who knows?
I like Apple rumours as much as the next guy, but this is clickbait. Nobody knows what Apple will do for their phones next year. They'll be faster, and maybe they'll be bigger. They'll probably have a different design, but I suspect that the design will actually stay more or less the same. They've got a lot invested in their relatively iconic design. You may not like the design of the iPhone, but it's recognisable, and that's important.
I dunno, doesn't seem to help people being stung by jellyfish.
I think we might be able to engineer our way out of the worst of it, but it's clear that without the benefit of sheer numbers and biomass, jellyfish can wildly out-compete already struggling ecosystems. If we don't want to be eating jellyfish chips for the next 100 years as our main source of seafood, we're really going to have to do better with regards to the ocean.
The problem is that it takes whole ecosystems to successfully fend off encroaching jellyfish, which is why they're on the rise--the ecosystems are collapsing.
There are a few creatures that eat jellyfish, but they eat EVERYTHING. Once the ecosystem starts to crumble, jellyfish feed into the loop by eating larvae and fry and eggs and anything available. They're good in anoxic environments, they're not affected by acidification (since they have no hard parts that are vulnerable; the only hard part they have isn't impacted), and they provide low nutritional value back to the ocean despite their intake.
It's a bit of a miracle that the oceans ever moved past the jellyfish stage at all. They're very old, really adaptable, and very, very good at surviving.
Well, yes. I agree, mostly. But the cost of an operation isn't entirely fixed, people need to get paid, equipment needs to get bought, etc. A government funded system can bargain more effectively for those sorts of provisions.
Also, a lawyer friend of mine once told me that you DO bargain with a supermarket when you buy something. They put a price on the product, but that's just what they WANT for it. In theory, you could try to talk them out of that price until you find something mutually agreeable.
Additional data point: WiFi networking hinges on a patent based on research done at CSIRO (in Australia) that was looking into miniature black holes.
So-called blue sky research is of incredible importance, and you can't predict what will come out of it. What private corporation would ever fund that sort of black hole research? You can't know what's going to create a winner before you start--if we knew that, we'd only start the projects that we knew were winners ahead of time, obviously.
Governments need to fund things that have no obvious profit end-goal or endeavours where profit is antithetical to the end-goal. Governments should generally fund and run health care because a healthy population would put the health care industry out of business--the health care industry makes more money when it does a bad job than when it does a good one. Roads have no obvious profitable end-goal, by and large. And so it is with speculative research.
This is, incidentally, why corporations also need to pay taxes. They benefit from healthy workers and an infrastructure that allows them to move their products and employees.
As usual, espousing one extreme or the other (pure corporatism vs. pure government control) is basically disaster. There IS a happy middle ground.
The Objective-C spec (absent of the Apple APIs) is much, much smaller than the C++ spec, and it's a proper superset of standard C. Any ANSI C program will compile as an objective C program.
C++ has a massive spec and even when you know what you're doing, you're pretty likely to shoot yourself in the foot at some point. A friend of mine recently joked that the motto of C++ should be, "Yes, well, don't." As in: "I can do this amazing thing in C++ and it's totally legal!" "Yes, well, don't." Pretty much every C++ programmer I know got a chuckle out of that.
I've been programming in C++ on a daily basis for well over 10 years, and there's just so much to hate. The Objective-C syntax is a bit weird, but it's straight forward once you get used to it. C# is possibly a cleaner syntactic representation of similar principals, but C++ is the only fright pig in the room here.
Go to AnandTech and look at the benchmarks for the A7. It is *by far* the fastest processor currently on the market (other than the Intel that isn't actually in anything). It clocks lower and has fewer cores, but still wildly outperforms anything inside a Samsung right now. The Snapdragons can't quite keep up.
And, actually, if you look at those benchmarks, you'll also realise that the iPhone 5 (and the A6 inside it) still come in near the top of the pack, despite being a year old.
There are plenty of reasons to not like Apple hardware, but performance and performance per watt aren't among them.
Even when comparing to OS X on Haswell, battery life under Windows underperforms rather badly.
That's a deliberately obtuse answer and you know it. OBVIOUSLY it's doing things in the background. You'd think with 10 years of people beating on it from every angle, someone would've figured out what all these magic things are. What are users getting for all this background processing?
And if our ability to understand what's going on in the background is so poor, how can we ever trust the OS to do what we want it to? (I know the answer for a lot of folks out there is, "we can't".) It's possible to get process listings and logs, and apparently none of these explain it. But maybe someone out there that used to work for Microsoft can answer the question--you think we'd have better luck actually asking Microsoft themselves what the answer is?
If true--and I'm pretty sure it isn't--those doctors would've been picked up somewhere else.
The Premier of Alberta did try to tinker with the care system in the province a bit; I can't remember what her goals were, but I could believe that doctors were being laid off or shuffled from care facilities in certain parts of the province to other parts. You'll have to do better than this vague proclamation of doom to convince me, though. Alberta has a pretty great healthcare system, even as Canadian provinces go.
Yes, they are. By and large, all of those stories ARE just rumours.
Canadians aren't exactly clamouring to emulate the US system. The Canadian woman that appeared in Republican commercials trying to smear our system had a non-threatening disorder that she felt was more serious than it actually was. She wasn't being refused care because we didn't have the capacity, she was being put on a waiting list because she could afford to wait while other people that had more threatening problems were triaged up the chain first.
We have waiting lists, yes. There are times where the system fails, yes. These are problems that every system tries to work out. But people here get care, and they get it without going bankrupt. The best case scenario in the Canadian system is that you get timely care with minimal cost. The average case is probably that you got reasonably timely care with a bit of wait, but still at minimum cost. Putting aside the worst case scenarios of death or misdiagnosis which are endemic in any system that involves humans--including the American system--you may have to wait a long time for care, but you're STILL not on the hook for any costs.
Many of the best case scenarios in the USA seem to leave middle class people with great care but crippling bills. The rich get off scott free, the poor simply don't get any care at all (or emergency room care, which is too little, too late, for too much).
I can understand not necessarily wanting the Canadian system. There are actually plenty of examples of even better systems in the world. But the fact remains that Canadian outcomes and costs are, objectively, better at lower cost. Life expectancy is higher here, infant mortality is lower.
But the current American system? A failed experiment. Try something else.
Who has more bargaining power? An individual, or a whole government?
That's really what's at stake with a lot of healthcare schemes. If you take Canada, for instance (since I live here), the doctors are basically private corporations providing care. But to work within the healthcare system, they charge what the government says they can. It's not actually illegal to set up a private hip replacement clinic (contrary to some misconception), it's just that that private clinic wouldn't be able to charge both a patient for getting to the front of the line AND bill the government for the service; the patient would have to front the whole cost. (At that point, why bother? Just fly down to the USA if you have that much money and pay for service there.) This is what Canadians are talking about when they say they're against a multi-tier system.
The government bargains on behalf of the populace, and covers essential healthcare (dental care and things like laser eye surgery aren't covered, for instance) and thereby gets a better deal on everything, saving EVERYONE money. Additionally, a healthy populace saves everyone money just through avoiding productivity loss.
I've been to the emergency room twice so far in my life, both times after being hit by a car while cycling. When facing stitches, broken teeth or bones and a whole lot of pain, I'm not in the mindset to bargain for anything. If you offered me minimal care for an outrageous price at that moment, I'd jump at it. Pain and injury really reduce one's bargaining position.
The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.