Just to show this is anecdotal, I have been using Apple notebooks for many years and have only ever had one problem. That problem was a defective trackpad. The Apple Store replaced the computer outright with the newer model as they were unable to get the part within seven days due to Christmas holidays. I hear good and bad things about customer service of all sorts of companies, but more often than not I have heard positive things about Apple.
I acquired a Nexus 4 from a friend after it had fallen into a (clean) toilet. She sent it to me to attempt to fix, and I too started with silica gel, moved onto placing it near the boiler, and eventually set it beside a dehumidifier. After a couple of weeks the phone appeared bone dry, but I couldn't get past the boot screen.
Fast forward six months of the Nexus 4 sitting in a drawer forgotten about. I took it out and charged it. Amazingly, the phone now works 100%.
Graduate software engineer jobs in the UK hit £30,000 at the very top end. From the experience of friends in the industry, £24,000-26,000 seems more realistic.
I like the idea. I'm not sure how long Facebook will allow it to operate for, but it's a good tool for those of us conscious about the amount of data shared on social networks.
However, I have two issues:
The site is claiming that the likes are used to populate advertising on Facebook. Surely a better way to prevent that is through http://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads§ion=social&... rather than removing likes? Perhaps I'm being misled by Facebook, but I have presumed that by toggling the option on the linked page to "no one" I would not have my data used to populate advertising in that way.
A second issue is the access the site is asking for; it is significantly too much. Again, I'm not overly familiar with Facebook so perhaps I'm incorrect here, but surely the site only needs fairly restricted access? Maybe the API doesn't allow such fine-tuning, but being allowed to post on my timeline seems excessive.
Of course the graph is fake math. It's only a representation of the long term goal, not a literal indicator of what will occur. I think that Orchestra are being fairly open about this; the same post that the graph was taken from also states, "if we run into unexpected snags, we may even stop filling reservations temporarily."
I downloaded it from the UK store, but I had to download it through the link in this post, as the Apple search cache probably hasn't updated yet on the App Store.
I have read several posts about ditching smartphones in recent months, and the writer invariably states that they were not addicted. However, if their behaviour pattern cannot be changed while still owning a smartphone, then they are addicted. It's a question of will power, and it seems many people don't have it.
I went through a stage of dependency on my iPhone, always filling in small gaps in my day with games, Twitter, email or Facebook. I realised I was spending too much time on it, and so for the past couple of years I've significantly restricted my time with the phone. Certainly it is never used in company. In my opinion, I've found a happy balance. I still get all the myriad pros that a smartphone offers, but don't reach for it every time I'm not busy.
G/Never. I don't have an account, nor do any of my friends I might be interested in following. Also, I think those photograph filters look terrible so the service itself doesn't really appeal to me.
It will buy them a lot of influence with potential purchasers or investors. Being able to say that they were able to sell old games in such a high volume is unusual for a company in such dire financial straits. The sale also will help to build excitement and get more journalistic attention for their next games, which is probably also the reason they have been giving away Metro: 2033 via Facebook.
If this is the plan it's quite desperate, but it just could work.
A significant amount of what is written on the Internet seems to cater to the extremes of opinion. Therefore it can often be difficult to find something rational, well thought out and considered. This makes analysis of subjects very difficult because there is no moderate voice or that voice gets drowned out by the extremists.
A second issue is that a good many articles online that profess to be teaching something cite no sources whatsoever. As a lawyer I find it very difficult to move past that, and even if the content seems good, I'll immediately be put off using that source to learn from.
The author of the article highlights one reason why users might be unlikely to fall for this scam - the act of entering a phone number would arouse suspicion - but in just a couple of minutes I have thought of several others:
- A significant proportion of basic-functionality applications in OS X do not require installation. Therefore one that does may appear unusual for the user.
- Many applications for OS X are being delivered by the Mac App Store. As time goes on, presumably the type of user that would be likely to fall for such a scam would look in the App Store for it first.
- The user of the application may have used it previously and therefore would know this was not a normal installation experience.
- If the application is freeware, the user may be aware of this and thus suspicious of the activation. If the application is paid, it seems likely that the malware would have been attained in an attempt to pirate the application. Giving credit where it's due, someone who has the technical ability (by way of understanding search and keywords, possibly torrents etc) to pirate would be unlikely to fall for such an elementary scam.
- If users are attempting to find an application through a search engine, it seems unlikely that such an unscrupulous site as those distributing malware-ridden applications would command a high search ranking.
I have used some broad generalisations, but these factors when taken in the round should serve to minimise the impact of such a development by scammers. Nonetheless, it's very sad to see OS X becoming more of a target for these sorts of activities, even if as yet, the makers haven't been successful in making viruses that operate without user permission.
It looks as though this site is not able to track individual people, but only companies. I'd guess they're doing this by querying each visitor IP with a database of known IP addresses used by companies. If so, it's not particularly sinister, not particularly useful, and not particularly accurate.
The discussion being had here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891637 - deals with a site that is allegedly identifying visitors individually somehow, most likely through something to do with social media. However, I'm skeptical.
I actually don't think the UX was that bad. Certainly not bad enough to be considered a major factor in the failure of the venture. My own take would be that the costs were too high, the device limitations were off-putting, iPad-only to start was a mistake, and the biggest factor was the daily nature of The Daily. It is nonsensical to have a daily news publication online where the old limitations of printing and distribution no longer exist.
On the one hand this chap, "[downloaded] an infinite number of games and software - all illegally," while also refers to people who pirate out of greed as - and this is verbatim - "bumholes". Despite the obvious hyperbole, it seems very likely that this man himself was once a bumhole.
The story presented by the writer is one that is largely inapplicable today. Developers and other content creators have got a better grip on regional pricing, most markets see software being released particularly since online distribution, and the software market has seen more budget alternatives to big name brands become available.
This response may appear rather dishevelled, but that is because I'm not sure what the point is that the article is attempting to touch on. The quasi-Marxist monologue is tired when the quality of free, or cheap software today is very high and so some wishy-washy argument about self-betterment through piracy is left looking rather weak.
There are some fairly strong arguments in favour of piracy, some even quite convincing. This is not one of them.