How much you pay doesn't equal it's value.
That's exactly what it equals!
Yep. In a free market system the value of goods or services is whatever the buyer is willing to pay and whatever the seller is willing to accept. Economics 101.
Apple is blurring the lines between software and SAAS.
I expect to pay a one time purchase price for an mobile application that has no additional maintenance besides support for OS upgrades. The developer is going to make those anyway to continue selling their app on my chosen platform. There's no reason I should have to pay just to keep the lights on. Patches should also be included. I paid for a working app, not a bundle of bugs. If you're going to add a bundle of new features and sell it as a "pro" version of the app, or whatever, I'll give it a look, but I may be perfectly happy with my original purchase and have no desire to "upgrade". I'll keep using the one I bought until you stop supporting it, and then I'll delete it an find a replacement that may or may not be your product.
SAAS is a different story. Say I install an app like MLB At Bat. There is an annual subscription for content (similar to buying a season of NFL Sunday Ticket). The app is secondary because what I'm primarily paying for is the content. If the content provider is doing their job then the subscription should cover the cost of the product, product improvements, and patches.
The bottom line is that not all software is a service even though money-grubbing Apple would like to treat it that way.
Future societies will hold the American system in almost all things as a cautionary tail rather than as the triumph it could have been.
The term is "cautionary tale", as in a story that provides a warning. A "cautionary tail" would be more akin to a baboon's ass or a skunk's raised tail. As for the "American system", it has been one of the greatest engines for prosperity that the world has ever seen.
For people to wake the fuck up and realize that short-term profit-driven ideology is not going to work in the long term while sacrificing investment in and opportunities for young people.
The problem is not the "people" (i.e. "we the people", or the country as a whole). The problem, in this particular discussion, is students feeling entitled to a free ride. College is not a right. It is not even a necessity. There are plenty of trades that pay exceedingly well and do not require a degree. Taking on the challenge of college also means accepting responsibility for the cost. Ultimately that is on the student. Don't have the funds? Can't get a loan or a grant? Take some time off and get a job the way past generations did. No one owed them a thing, and they still made something of themselves. The entitlement bullshit needs to stop. That's what's killing the "American system". We have a couple of generations that think the world owes them. In truth, it owes them fuck all. If they're not willing to put something into it, then they should get nothing out of it.
Whoa there buddy. You are all over the radar and trying to tie things that don't go together. Let's unpack it just a bit.
...says the guy doing the same thing.
See if we can get people who immigrate to the United States to respect the laws, learn the language, and integrate into the culture and society.
See you are making your argument here that not speaking English is against the law and well that's not true.
In fact, he listed "respect the laws" as a distinct action separate from "learn the language" and 'integrate into the culture". Your insistence that he is lumping all of these traits under "against the law" is complete bollocks.
I didn't read the series, so I can't say whether she was a good character or not.
So his point may be valid regarding poor writing, but since you haven't read it you're just going to piss all over it? Go do your homework first and quit shouting "racism" and "sexism" where none exists.
This might be a bit of an aside, but it's a sad state of affairs that a parasite like a streamer is now considered a 'business partner' with the gaming company. A 'golden customer' who 'the staff' should not be allowed to displease.
We have progressed beyond the point where companies like Blizzard sell 'level-boost tokens' that allow people to not have to actually play the game they (apparently) regret having written, which interferes with 'the endgame.'
Now, game companies consider 'streamers' who potential customers can simply watch playing the game to be 'partners.' Some beancounter must have done a study that showed that "Lottery Box" sales aren't impacted if people don't actually play the game.
Your ignorance is astounding. A popular streamer is marketing the game. Some have even become esports commentators. Those are the players/fans that game companies reach out to and cultivate a relationship with. Any game company that is not appreciative of the exposure would be (as the old saying goes) "cutting off their nose to spite their face". It is a "sad state of affairs" when a super-fan is considered to be a parasite. *smdh*
You also apparently have no understanding whatsoever of Blizzard's player base. The bulk of WoW gamers are long time players they are looking to retain who have fully leveled mains and don't want to grind another toon up to max level just to try a new class. Instead they can choose to skip ahead to minimum level for the current expansion and continue from there. Skipping levels is a godsend when you have a dozen or so toons of each faction. A lot are also only focused on end-game raid content, so again, this gives them the opportunity to get (almost) directly to the content they most enjoy.
The fact is in the Age of Internet Shaming there is no such thing as "off-the-clock". I don't think this is a good thing. I think people should be allowed to have time when they aren't responsible to their employers, even if they use that time to be assholes.
The problem is that while she was communicating outside of normal work channels she was still acting a company representative by:
1) identifying herself as an employee of that company
2) identifying as a developer of a particular product
3) interacting with that company's fans/player base as a representative of the company
She essentially put herself back on the clock and communicated in a way that made her answerable to her employer. In that context the company had good cause to fire her for generating negative publicity outside of normal community feedback channels that could harm the company's reputation and sales. This is why game companies have marketing departments and player forums with community managers. The company's response here is entirely appropriate.
If she had never identified herself as an employee of that company and been fired for doing something unrelated to her occupation or her employer then we'd be having a completely different conversation.
That idea gets thrown around a lot and taken for fact, and I'm sure some of the people saying it believe it. Your artist friend may believe that it doesn't matter what he thinks the painting is of.
However, that's not a universal view, and many artist very much have a view of what their art means. In fact, some artists will even refuse to talk about their work for the exact opposite reason. Although they had a particular message or idea they were trying to convey, they don't want to explain it further for fear of muddying the waters. They feel that their art a precise expression of what they want to express, and that further explanation would make it less clear.
Also, a lot of times, even if an artist says "it doesn't matter what I think it means", they'll still get upset if you interpret it to mean something they don't like.
What you point out is true of people in a broader sense. Some are more comfortable with ambiguity than others. Literalists? Not so much, and it seems to me that they are the ones more likely to have a specific interpretation of their art (or other methods of communication), and expect others to have that same interpretation.
Great pull. "The Prisoner" was definitely in a different head space than the other spy movies, TV shows, and books of the time. It was more psychedelic than hard boiled and gritty.
I'm going to have to pull out the boxed set again and give it a watch.
His anger is centred on Roddenberry's temerity in changing what was submitted AND his (irrational) belief that he should get a acknowledgement/royalty of all time-travelling stories (including "The Terminator").
I'm sure if he could have gone back in time and sued H.G. Wells for "The Time Machine" that he would have. He was one pissed off cat.
In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them.
