I think you're pretty close to spot on but I disagree with one aspect and it got me thinking... Whilst with a coke you do know and expect the same every time, something like a coffee you don't. I'm somewhat of a coffee snob these days and can be pretty picky with my coffee, but I'll still chance $3 to $4 on something that I could regret later. Why? Then I realised, to counter-act buyer's remorse you have the ability to justify to yourself that at least if it is bad you can choose not to buy your coffee from that store again. Perhaps the analogy for app purchases is outright vs subscription purchases? It'd be interesting look at a comparison between paying, say $1 for an app, or paying $0.25 a month for the same app. I would hypothesise that people would be more willing to pay the $0.25 for one month (to at least trial the app for one month before paying the full $1) so they can "choose" to stop or not pay for the app in full even though this would mean that they'd have to "reject" 1 in 4 apps to just break even.
After hearing about people having their whole (google) lives (accounts) delete, I highly recommend http://goo.gl/mbDHy
... the Mafia being to be removed from the "Organised Crime" index of the yellow pages, but being left in the white pages? It won't stop people who really want to contact the Mafia from doing so, it'll just result in them generating less attention (which is probably what they'd like). I wouldn't see this a good thing if I was the MPAA/RIAA.
There is no way it is a marketing ploy to get people to buy a second iPhone 4 when the elusive "white" model is available because iPhone consumers are only interested in the raw features and functionality of the device. It has nothing to do with cosmetic looks, I guarantee it! I have a white 3GS
“I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”- Stephen F. Roberts
but profiting from the idea is patent infringement. This is the really ugly grey area and something I know nothing about. What constitutes "profiting"? If he has Google ad-words on his site and gets revenue from that, is that profiting? Even if he doesn't directly derive any cash from the traffic, is the attention/notoriety/status that he gains a "profit"? If it is, how would you hypothetically calculate a value to give to the patent owner if they sued? What if the author, instead of posting this as a blog, published a journal or conference paper detailing the idea (as often occurs)? This sort of thing, if upheld, could really stifle academia. e.g. how do you teach computer science/mathematics undergrads about these concepts without infringement - would you have to go back to chalk and talk instead of handing out pdf slides? how do you do publish further research of this idea if you were not permitted to outline the current state-of-the-art in the background of a paper/thesis?
Which is why I run: 1) Ubuntu Linux on my home server/gateway 2) Mac OS on my laptop for day-to-day use 3) Windows inside my vm for running e-Tax (Australian Gov. tax return software - only runs under Windows/Wine)
So let me get this straight, UAC is both: 1) Too easy to ignore as you just have to click 'yes' every time 2) Too intrusive as it pops up whenever a program requires administrative privileges So you want your cake and to eat it too do you? At least as far as point 2 goes, mac os and many linux distros are "worse" as they not only prompt, but require your user name and password. For me the problem never was about UAC, it was the fact that the UI design of things like the control panel required users to go in and out of the Administrative sandbox too often. This creates too many UAC prompts which frustrates the user. Mac OS at least (and some stuff in linux) has the notion of temporarily unlocking things like System Preferences so you can make many changes with only one prompt. The concept of Windows's UAC is fine, it just boils down to poor UI design. Disclaimer: These days I use a mac for my day to day machine and various ubuntu boxes for remote number crunching that I do.
Oh and also, the CSIRO aren't Patent Trolls as they spun off a company (Radiata) to commercialise the patent. Radiata was then aquired by CISCO. "Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
The CSIRO is playing the same rules that apply to everyone. The reason why the big company's aren't happy is that the CSIRO has no need to do a patent "swap". Normally, the big companies would just threaten to sue each other due to patent infringement and then at the last minute agree to cross licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-licensing with a minimal (if any) amount of money trading hands. However, the CSIRO doesn't make end product. As such they have no need for cross licensing. They just want royalties for their IP. Big business goes after the smaller guys that don't have IP to cross license all the time, why is it that now the shoe is on the other foot that everyone is up in arms about it?
I think the point the sane people on here are trying to make is that targeting the possession of CP is just the easy way for governments and law enforcement to perceive to be working to protect children. Whilst seeking out and acquiring CP certainly does great a market for its generation, possession doesn't directly cause child harm. It just doesn't. It indirectly does. As such, if governments and law enforcement were serious about really "protecting the children" they'd commit a majority of their resources (in terms of person, money and legal power) in tracking down and prosecuting the direct causes of child harm (those actually generating CP). It is indeed a cynical point but I believe a valid one that when authorities trumpet prosecuting possessors of child porn, they're merely doing so to make themselves look good, and not actually doing *that* much to prevent abuse from happening. From a mathematical point of view, presume for every 1 person that generates CP there is say 1000 people that view that piece of material. In order to reduce CP by cutting demand, you'd really have to take out 99% of those viewers of the material. However, if you go after that 1 person generating the CP you've achieved your goal and arguably prosecuted the more guilty party in the process.
Both Microsoft and Apple are probably partly to blame here for failing to add resolution independence to their operating systems (which they've both promised for years). Who wants an extremely high DPI display when you can't scale up your Operating System so that it's usable?
Don't tell me you're having second thoughts on that old tea party of yours are you?
Not to mention that the whirlpool forums are one of the best general resources of tech knowledge, it never ceases to amaze me the number of times I google for something and a post comes up in the top 5 results.