Don't think so. From the article, they estimate 50 games will be affected. This looks like this is effecting memory clones, not any app with the word memory in it.
Yes. Complain once the app is rejected.
Then we can have a good dialog about how Apple did not do the right thing. About how it is unfair, and anti-competetive. I can't wait to have that discussion after it gets rejected.
Only problem is, it hasn't been rejected. How can we have this discussion when so far the only story is that someone at Google doesn't THINK it will be accepted?
Custom hosts files will probably go far for this. Instead of keeping a txt file or something of your ipv6 ips. Throw them all in your hosts file.
Am I the only one whose first thought was of Ender's Game? In reality, I think the idea has been around for a while, and seems quite practical AND useful. To me the only surprising thing is that it hasn't been implemented yet. It seems like we should have had the technology to do something like this for a long time.
Detecting some of the problems early on can significantly help the child.
This is probably nothing more than the app had to have broken out of its sandbox. There should not have been a way for the app to monitor what other apps were doing without doing something disallowed by Apple.
Not saying I don't want this app, or that some arrangement/exclusion shouldn't be reached by the two companies (perhaps with a code review to make sure everything they are doing outside of the sandbox is benign), but I don't think this is a big conspiracy.
Just simply Apple continuing in its tunnel vision of not allowing apps full freedom on its phone.
Would definitely install this app if it was brought back. Perhaps release code so we can install it ourselves?
The WSJ has confirmed through searches that the results for Mac users are many times more expensive than those shown to Windows users. Orbitz has replied that users always have the option to re-order by price if they don't like the initial order of hotels provided.
I generally am on board with using data to show more relevant results, but not sure how I feel about the supposed relevant results being more expensive. Is this inevitable or do we need some sort of screen bias protection?
Link to Original Source
You can just use Amazon S3 Storage.
If you use EC2 for a simple virtual server you can mount the S3 volume onto your virtual server.
If you are like me and prefer rackspace virtual servers, then you can still mount the S3 volume with something like jungle disk.
You can then use something like Jungledisk to mount it as a volume on both machines, server and source machine.
Rackspace has basic virtual servers for like $10 a month.
So $10 for basic virtual server. $50 for 50 GB of disk storage on S3, plus $5 a month for jungle disk.
$65. Is that within your budget for a short term project?
Jungle disk is not required to make it work, but its only $5, and can make it simpler to mount the volume. If you use a virtual server on amazon EC2 you can actually just mount the 500GB volume.
I don't think money laundering means what you think it does. They do use the Cell Phones to transfer money, but has nothing to do with the laundering of the money. According to the 7 minute audio, they STILL need to use the services of money launderers.
If I am paying per click for certain search terms, then this data SHOULD be passed along. The other alternative is to just get a bill from google and trust that it is accurate?
As an advertiser I need this information. First to make sure I get the clicks google is charging for me, and more importantly to determine which words don't have a conversion rate worth paying for.
Received the invite. Thanks!
The article talked a lot about transportation costs. Were they just comparing transportation costs? What about the environmental impact of keeping the A/C running and lights going all day in the store?
Very very short on details.
True. Wish I could edit it.