Our judgement of the Roman / british legacy is subject to
"Survivor Bias". If you can't see the cost paid by those who did not survive then things will look much better !
59 karma · joined May 16, 2011
Are the Aborigines or US native indians actually better off?
For me the benefits of British rule are very mixed and to argue that the conquered are better off ignores the costs borne in the past. Additionally, we cannot say how things might have been if people had been allowed to develop naturally and trade under normal circumstances.
hahahaha - for who ? Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire.
Seriously, yes, there were some side benefits eventually for the colonies but the cost was great and continues in many parts of the world. I resent that ignorant statement.
Thanks
I got my Nexus one around 14 months ago. I choose it because its was the official Google developer's phone and so mostly likely to get updated! Except of course we now know that the Android benchmark device that's less than 2 years old will not be getting any more updates.
BTW - I am willing to bet that when ICS source is released someone works out how to get ICS on it. I.e - I doubt that there's any fundamental reason it can't be done?
I think you have proven something that many of us have experienced - Android may have a number of technical advantages but its rollout management is unreliable and chaotic and so many non technical users may actually be better off with IOS devices! Technical users may be able to update themselves with some effort (E.g. via XDAdevelopers) if they choose devices carefully and have a bit of luck !
Over the last few months I have been advising my non technically minded friends / family members to "just get an IOS device if you can afford it. Android is great and more flexible but App quality is generally lower and you can't be sure you can EASILY get updates even 6 months after you buy. With IOS you know the device will be supported for around 2 years and maybe even longer. With Android there is no guarantee!"
For me this is sad. I've got both an Android phone (Nexus one) and a tablet (HTC flyer). I am seriously thinking of getting an Iphone for my next personal phone and just accept the few restrictions - BAH !
I honestly can't remember ever seeing a Flash crash actually bring down the the browser. Maybe I've been very lucky.
I see that I'm getting down voted for calling 'ED' out on his sweeping statement where he did not define what he meant by a "crash". Note that for many users a "crash" is when what ever App/game/web-page they are running stops with some error and they can't continue. My basic point is that many (most??) of these, in my experience, are down to developer error.
Many developers seem to have an irrational "hate-fest" going against Flash. For sure there's a lot wrong with it but, for me, all to often "its not the tool but the craftsman at fault".
E.g. - the developer asks for an runtime created asset that doesn't exist anymore or there's a condition under which a block of code runs forever (actually in this case the flash runtime stops after 15 seconds of activity and allows the user to kill it but it's still a "crash" insofar as the user is concerned.
WHAT? Are you serious? Please educate us as to how that is done.
The point I was trying to make is that tools are productivity aids and if a tool gets in the way and distracts you from your main activity (or activities) too much it can be counter productive.
I use both Eclipse and VisualStudio and find those tremendous! A good tool hides unnecessary stuff from you and works in a clear predictable way. A tool is bad for me when it does the opposite.
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operati...
However, some of his examples aren't convincing for me. I actually like the ugly Motion-X toggle switches compared to the IOS toggles which are a bit confusing I find - I can immediately see what is active / selected on the motion-X screen but on his examples of the correct" design I couldn't immediately work out what is selected/active. Also, the Motion-X tabs are much clear to me - there I said it.
To be honest the author comes across as one of those who insist on people following the "correct" rules even when they get in the way or there is a better solution.
I'll bet there are a lot of people who also disagreed with some of his examples but who won't say anything for fear of appearing "ignorant" in the eyes of the "design police".
Another important point. He states
"On average, only 3% of people who have downloaded an app use it after 30 days. Why? Because the majority of iPhone apps don’t make any sense to users."
But where is the evidence for this? He shows App usage over time graphs which don't separate between "over-designed" and "correctly designed apps" and then goes on to make an unwarranted assertion that the fall off is due users not understanding how to use the apps! How about the utility value of the apps not being enough or users getting bored with their $0.99 fun purchase ?
Lastly, if you go to the author's web site. You'll see he's designed an app for a pizza company. I downloaded it and it's beautiful (in fact I fancy a pizza now)! However, It does not use ANY standard IOS controls and has gone for a very nice custom dedicated UI!
His article spends a lot of time basically saying that the standard UI should be used but as his own app demonstrates there are cases where a custom UI is appropriate. His article would be much better if he provided guidance on when using a custom UI is better and provided evidence for his assertions.
You seem to be arguing that writing software is basically a creative process which is the same as producing literature and music but software is fundamentally different in that it goes beyond aesthetics. Software is not normally used to produce an expression / statement about life / culture or someone's emotional state etc but is used to process data in such a way as to have a functional and measureable impact.
Here's a question for you. Your competitor has patented a "solution" which basically the same as yours and is now sueing you for infringement how would copyright and / or trade secrets help?"?
Here's another question. Why is a software patent special? As opposed to one based on expression of a solution to a problem in terms of, say, electronic circuitry?
Let's say that your wish is granted and software patents are made illegally but hardware patents are still legal how would we stop companies like Apple and HTC "gaming" the system by tying the software to physical devices so that they become hardware patents?
I'm not sure I have all the answers but making software patents a special case just feels wrong and is likely to have so many legal loopholes as to be worthless ?
The patent system as currently practiced is broken. That much is clear. It was supposed to be about promoting innovation and the spread of knowledge. Instead it seems to really be about granting monopolies. But until the law is changed companies have to apply for patents if only to protect themselves against attack.
We need fundamental changes to the patent system which applies to ALL patents.
Software just as much as hardware can be used to "express" something new. I.e. to invent something.
An patentable invention is a novel "solution to a problem which is NON-OBVIOUS to someone skilled in the art".
The real issue with software patents is that they are granted far too easily. The test that seems to be applied by the patent examiners is "is that new?". However, they should be asking "given the problem the inventor is trying to solve is the solution (the invention) really non-obvious to some one skilled in the art?".
However, even though I think that software patents, with the proper examination standards are just as valid as hardware patents I think there is a case for limiting (or even banning) ALL patents - NOT just software patents.
One idea would be the requirement that a working prototype has to be produced and seen to be working. That, along with a proper non-obviousness test, would limit companies going for patent "land grabs".
you know what they say - "People in glass houses should not throw stones"!
This is the real cost we pay for google's "free" services. (BTW I don't as long as I can use a pseudonym of some sort).
Why should we have to pay for a scientific paper if it was produced by a public funded institution?
What's the long term effect on the spread and advancement of knowledge if access is restricted and "gamed" for profit?
If he's sued (against assuming I properly understand the issues here) I'll probably contribute to his defence because he's acting in everyone's interest.
:-)
So you can tell who the boss is by their shit !
Metaphorically speaking we've been doing this for years :-)
It is clear that being dependent on them for any significant part of your business model is risky and currently ill-advised.
Why they aren't taking issues like this seriously are a mystery to me. IMO - its stuff like this which will end up sinking them.
There are many valid cases where native is the better approach and others where web-app is best ! Any decent developer will do their homework and select appropriately.
BTW - many of the 'problems' high-lighted on the graph apply to both Native and Web-apps and there are some additional ones with Web-apps but I can't be bothered to spell them out. Bah !!