Now you pay Spotify $10/month for unlimited access to the entire album. To the entirety of the artist's catalogue. To the entirety of all the included artists' catalogues.
This is obviously and trivially less money than any one of those artists would make previously from you if you liked their music.
What makes you so sure there's less money here?
I remember that we used to pay about $10 per album (with the exception of certain top 40 new releases that cost twice as much that I never bought), and I used to buy about 1 album per month. If everyone who did that switched to Spotify for the entirety of their music consumption, that's exactly the same revenue going into the system as before.
It's even better now. Under the old system, if you liked an artists music you bought it once, and that was the end of the transaction. Especially for new artists with only one or two albums, that's tough. Who goes out and buys an artists' entire back catalog, anyway? Under the new system, if you like the artists music they can keep getting paid as long as you keep listening to it.
Phones are typically replaced after a two-year contract, after which they *might* live for another year on a secondary market. People seem to be stretching their tablet purchases a little further: as long as four years, with again potentially one additional year in the secondary market, though data on this is still in it's infancy. However, that still puts 5 years as the longest life for a tablet, that may be sold as much as a year after the OS release. The result is that I'd really like to see us hold handset makers to a 3 year support life for phones and 5 for tablets, and hold the OS maker (Google/Apple/MS) held to a six year cycle.
Desktops and laptops (and servers), on the other hand, have traditionally been much more likely to be hoarded by consumers for as long as they can make the device go. I've seen desktops pushing the 11 year mark, running an OS that was already 4 years old when the desktop was new. That makes Windows XP's 13-year supported life seem downright short. I like what linux is doing right with with LTS support releases vs standard releases of various distros. That allows them to move the product forward more rapidly, but still provide stability and support for those who need it. However, even those LTS support windows are often laughably short.
Only workers earning an annual income of under $23,660 qualify for mandatory overtime. Many millions of Americans are currently exempt from the overtime rules — teachers, federal employees, doctors, computer professionals, etc.
So let's say they "fix" the computer professionals exemption. If that happens, it defaults back tot he $23,660 rule. How many IT pros do you know that make $23,600 or less?
Disagree, because the probable result here is a lot of people taking a large cut to their base pay with the expectation that they make it up by doing overtime. In other words, it effectively increases the length of the work week without really increasing worker compensation.
It's kinda late now, but MS finally figured out that the major version should update when the runtime changes.
To date there have been 3 versions of the runtime:
The 3.0 and 3.5 series were really about changes to the C# language and then adding all the linq stuff. All this new stuff, including the current 4.5.x version (which should have been named more like 4.1.x ) is still using the 4.0 series, or third generation, of the runtime.
IE7 is already dead. The only supported system that still has it by default is Vista. Vista already has such poor market share, and even most of those users are running IE 9.
With XP now officially end of life, it's reasonable to expect users to be running at least IE 9 now.