Doesn't matter, fewer people suffering is still better than nothing. The fact you don't care about the actual number of people supposedly suffering speaks volumes about what you really care about - i.e. Hating Apple, not some guy in China just happy to have a good job.
but it's not easier to bring a tablet and a laptop than to just bring a laptop, right?
No, but it is easier to bring just a laptop than a tablet. Any USB source charges it. You can carry it more easily, and use it in more places.
since a laptop does everything a tablet does
Not actually true (touch interface far better for things like drawing) but let's pretend it is.
A laptop may be able to do everything a tablet does but if the tablet is far lighter and has better batter life guess which most people would rather have on a trip?
In a foreign country would you rather wander around looking for a WiFi cafe with a tablet tucked in your purse, or a backpack with a laptop?
This is exactly why tablets have done as well as they have, because they replace laptops for some scenarios where portability is more convenient.
i'm in BT range of my phone 99% of the day, and i think that's pretty typical.
And I'm in quick viewing range of my phone 99% of my day, which is also typical. They are the same thing...
You are joking, but if you really thought that was a problem then you would be cheering for the workers to be out of jobs you consider unhealthy for them.
So the fact you are not cheering, why is that again?
the tablet allows them to
Yes, because it's a lot easier to bring a tablet with you than a laptop. So you may well have a tablet around when there is no laptop to open.
The same is not true of any modern smart watch, which by design only really does much when a smart-phone is in your pocket.
Because you are used to the area, you do not think about driving as much near home - instead thinking about what you will do where you are going or when you get home, when you are close. It's easy to grow inattentive and miss a change that leads to an accident.
Picking someone up and dropping someone off has none of the risks of familiarity since each situation is different.
What are you talking about?
Look, we all know you are lost at this point but the deal is that with system extensions a user of your app can perform different editing of images in your app based on what other applications they have installed.
Did you even look at what iOS8 can do at all? Or are you just totally ignoring the key point?
This is about using Adobe's services which are then available from whatever platform you target
Try reading yourself noob.
I am talking about allowing your application to make use of system extensions which means no two apps are alike in use.
Actually yes it is, if you've developed an image editing application you want it to produce the same results on whatever platforms you target.
Actually no it's not. If your image editing program can make further use of external plug-ins, then you don't care about having it produce the same across platforms because it will never be the same FOR EACH USER.
Would you truly argue that image editing programs should not allow for plugins, that there is no value? Because you are.
There is some base level of functionality it is useful to provide. But my point is why would you PAY for only that base?
So either that means you embed this thing in iOS8 and have a separate way to get to it from the system extensions for editing, which means it's not the same as any other platform...
Or you don't use it and just use the system extensions which means it's not the same as any other platform...
OR you only us this and don't allow system extensions in which case it's the same across all platforms and zero people are using your product on iOS because every other app gets to use system extensions for editing instead of your singular library.
It's a nice idea but how many people will pay to embed this framework when scores of iOS extensions are going to come out with iOS8, and let you do essentially the same thing?
You can target everyone who was sent or sent mail to anyone who lost email - you find out who that is simply by gathering a list of everyone that person communicated with a month before and after the period they lost the email for. You might miss a few people in the middle but it would be pretty close, and you'd probably get most of it.
Then suffer the penalties of the law or obey it. There is no false, you either change the law, follow it, or accept it's punishment.
Or you continue to break it and seek to avoid punishment as much as possible.
The law is not subject to interpretation
That shows a total lack of understanding of the court system, or an inkling why there is a court of appeals.
So if a company worth billions exists by dumping toxic wastes into rivers, laws against that do not matter?
In that case it is morally wrong to do so, so it matters. If it's morally right to break a law, then the law does not matter.
If it is that obvious and plainly seen, then you will have absolutely no problem getting the law changed.
And THAT shows an utter lack of understanding of political momentum or how laws get made/unmade.
You called me naive but you are the one who doesn't seem to understand anything about the mechanics of laws or regulations.
I'll let you have the last response as you obviously cannot reach enlightenment on this matter.
If it isn't right, then get the law changed.
However, you simply cannot say the law doesn't matter as obviously it does or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And you cannot say it DOES matter or we would not be having this conversation.
Obviously if a company worth many billions exists by flouting these laws, they do not matter.
and yes, they limit the number of taxis to limit competition. They do this in order to ensure the taxis are profitable enough to maintain their vehicles and stay in business.
Which we can plainly see is not necessary, therefore it only exists to drive up the cost of taxi licenses and protect unions jobs.
What isn't subject to interpretation is laws and regulations.
Yes it is, if some of he regulation only exists to prevent competition. You think the limited number of taxi licenses sold is to keep people safe? Or to keep taxi medallions expensive... in what way is that regulation one that is morally right to follow?
I would say their levels of insurance is a key way
I don't have time to respond to everything, but UberX DOES insure drivers. And the normal Uber service uses town car drivers that are already insured to drive other people too..
Companies coming in and skirting all regulation and laws that other companies have played by for years?
Regulations and laws that have been added to over the years with a strong intent to kill all competition?
Why SHOULD a company obey laws that are unethically sound. If a law is bad why is it not just as admirable for a company to engage in civil disobedience - we already treat companies as individuals to some extent, so why would there not be good along with bad as there is with everything else?
After all Uber/Lift are doing everything they can to obey the SPIRIT of regulations regarding taxis. The regulations exist to help makes things safer for drivers and passengers - and in that regard Uber and Lyft are VASTLY better than a taxi company. If things go wrong with a Uber ride there is a record of where you were picked up and where you traveled. With a taxi you can go in and just disappear from the face of the planet.
I personally would prefer an Uber ride in every regard to a taxi, any time it is possible... because they are simply a safer service that is much nicer to use. In what way are they not following regulations that actually matter?