The difference now is that the iPhone 5 has been recast as the 5C, and is not shipped alongside the 5S. Instead, it is still a higher priced product, although not nearly as pricey as the 5S, and the 4S is free with contract.
TLDR: Apple has always shipped a "discounted" iPhone except for the original.
The amusing thing here is that the Naginata is probably more immediately recognized by this audience as an ashandarei.
And here I was thinking that Jabba was a caricature of American politicians - fat, stupid, lazy, ready to kill on a whim, and unable to speak anything but nonsensical gibberish.
I would take it differently. Jabba was incredibly intelligent, fat, lazy and ruthless. You don't come to control a major criminal element without being intelligent.
This is a really strange article. MVC vs. JSP / static content is not apples to apples, like the first test was.
When you return a view, it isn't static content. Making a call to a controller is also not the same as serving up an HTML page - the controller is instantiated, the action is invoked, and depending on the type of action, a model could be instantiated and bound. It isn't like creating a simple ASP.NET page that has "Response.Write" in the page load, since the ASP.NET page itself is much closer to what a JSP page is.
There isn't really a circumstance for static HTML in ASP.NET, since it all gets rolled into a Response.Write method in the end. I imagine a JSP page does the same thing, and on both ends, the resulting HTML gets cached. This would be the "optimization" he's witnessing from Tomcat. ASP.NET does the same thing.
You'd have to do some stuff in Java to get to the MVC level of complexity, and not just use Tomcat. Vanilla ASP.NET is a more appropriate tool for comparison. As noted in an above comment, you'd probably have to compare ASP.NET MVC to Spring.
Hell, classic ASP performs better than ASP.NET MVC.
The regulation we applied to capitalism made higher standard of living for a population.
You might want to actually read up on capitalists.
"Tax payer money was wasted by loaning it to a business nobody else would touch." while true with studio 38, usually that isn't true. In fact, a lot of case it as helped. but success in government isn't really reported. You know why? it's not unusual.
I think the argument is more one of "should government be investing in not-for-public-use private entities?" rather than one of regulation. Regulation is setting boundaries for capitalism to live within - it's generally a good thing. Government investment in the private sector, however, is something that needs to be monitored. It makes sense when investing in private companies to the end of the public good (military spending, roads, "utilities"), but that's about it.
- Company A supplies Company B with chips for Company B's products.
- Company A decides the money made off supplying parts is not enough and decides to compete with Company B directly by supplying products with very similar designs to Company B.
- Company B files suit against Company A for infringement.
- Company A insists they're fine, but doesn't realize a good chunk of business still comes from Company B
- Company B does the logical thing and divorces all business from Company A.
Samsung is not a victim, here. This is the logical conclusion of bad business done by Samsung. They could have done it differently, and coexisted with Apple. Now, they reap their reward. I don't really understand why this is so hard for the Android fanbois to understand.
You've just suggested that an individual company be allowed to restrict the ability of some users to post whatever they want. Cue screams involving the first amendment and a
The first amendment doesn't apply to a company's ability to censor content on a site they own.
If you don't know this, perhaps it says more about *your* ignorance of the law.
FTFY. It's not a language issue, it's a law issue. "Evasion" has a connotation within the boundaries of US law, whereas "Avoidance" does not. They mean the same exact thing, however.