There was a comment on Reddit a while back about what the 140 character limit means in different places:
In English, you get a comment.
In Japanese, you get a poem or a brief news article.
In Chinese, you get a short story... it might as well be a novel.
And someone gave an example Chinese tweet that translated to:
"You guys are the Sina fans other there? 'Keep on Perseverance' (some literate group) is publishing some online literature collection, referencing to the sissy poet character in the 'Cellphone' TV series. I know the people in 'Sina Literature Collection" (another group) well since junior high school; often went to their chat room to chit-chat bull. His (Keep on Perservance) main page's arrangement is overwhelming; I can't digest them. My preference is simple, slim, light-breeze style of literature. Hey, today is the clan chief's birthday, too. Don't know how he/she enjoying his/her day in Swissland. May be eating chocolate fondue? I can't do winter hibernation anymore. Have to come out. And have been messing around with you all day long."
There's a tradeoff between larger character set and easier input method. It's not trivial to input Chinese characters with keyboard. It compensates by allowing richer expressions with fewer characters.
It's a link. It's no different from being in the default set of bookmarks. If that's "pre-packaging," anyone who distributes a link to the NYTimes with paid software is guilty of the same thing.
It is a Headline and Summary with a Link. Completely different. I doubt that changes your point or your mind, but lets be clear on whats going on.
I would also add, that this in itself (IMHO) is harmless, but there is also the issue of using NYT content etc in marketing materials (screenshots) for a paid app.
I think that the RSS link/headline&summary by itself is harmless, but that together its a bigger deal.
BTW I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just feel that people are dealing with each issue isolation and losing the overall context.
>Is one thing for a user to add a RSS feed, its another to pre-package it in a commercial app.
The only thing they are pre-packaging is a link. Yes, it displays the content, but it's no different from any other piece of client software in that regard. They do not pre-package any NYT content, which was what I mean when I said it's only a link.
The ad material is the only place where the NYT might have a case, but it seems pretty clear that was not their issue, or they would have objected to the ad, not the software.
This really isn't that big of a shift from Skype et al. until it's available on 3G. And you know what? I haven't used a webcam in years. Not an extraordinarily useful piece of technology, and it's still not the best experience even on wired networks (because the wired networks have been frozen in time here in the States.)
And as for it being at normal data rates on 3G, I'll believe it when I see it. (It can't be free.)
Speaking of Skype, it's free to make calls over 3G now on the iPhone with (Skype v2). HOWEVER, that will change in September when at&t will start charging a monthly skype fee. I seriously doubt at&t will let anyone do videoconferencing without getting a piece of the pie.
>Apple is moving the goalpost for UI performance seemingly faster than Google can keep up.
You can't make statements like that until you have a Nexus One running Froyo side-by-side with the new iPhone. Google just introduced a newly optimized Dalvik Virtual Machine, and I expect it will be quite competitive.
I have a 3GS and an N1 running froyo. The iphone is still faster/smoother by a wide margin. In fact, the much touted speed improvements in froyo are hardly noticeable IMO. As a full-time Android dev, I wish they were.
> In fact, the much touted speed improvements in froyo are hardly noticeable IMO. As a full-time Android dev, I wish they were.
So Froyo improves speed in applications, but doesn't improve UI responsiveness much?
Would make sense if most of these improvements come from the JIT: UI stuff (especially responsiveness issues) generally isn't about tight loops, so the JIT compiler wouldn't help much.
To call it gluttony is insulting to those who work 50+ hours a week, can barely get by, and yet are still overweight. Food is not a significant part of cost of living in the US, especially if you eat poorly. The paradox is that eating poorly actually ends up being gluttonous if we're looking at it from a health standpoint.
But many of the people you're insulting do not have the luxury of eating healthy meals and going for 30 minute runs every other day.
Assuming that the people who are food insecure are also poor (i.e., below the US poverty line), they do not work 50+ hours/week. 80% of the poor don't work at all, and are not even looking for work.
Although, good luck finding 50 hours a week of work in this economy.
And that only applies to US citizens. Never mind undocumented immigrants. (Though many do earn minimum wage and pay taxes.) Restaurants will often split low-income workers to avoid either restaurant giving them more than 40 hours a week, so they can avoid overtime and benefits.
...good luck finding 50 hours a week of work in this economy.
First, I cited statistics from 2007, before the economy went down. Second, the statistics show that 80% of the poor are not looking for a job and that only 10% of them work more than 35 hours a week. Third, only 3.5% of the poor want to work more than 35 hours/week but are unable to find work.
Lastly, minimum wage is more or less irrelevant. Only 1.7 million workers (373k of whom were under 19) earned minimum wage or less in 2007. Assuming everyone earning min wage or less is poor [1], that's only 4.5% of the poor.
Also, to respond to a statement you made in your previous post: I work more than 50 hours/week, yet I still manage to find time to exercise and to cook healthy food. (Yesterday: work from 9 to 7, 3 hours of martial arts, dinner, work from 12-1.) If I can do it, why can't the poor?
[1] Teenagers earning min wage, but living in a non-poor household are not counted as part of the poor.
Also, to respond to a statement you made in your previous post: I work more than 50 hours/week, yet I still manage to find time to exercise and to cook healthy food. (Yesterday: work from 9 to 7, 3 hours of martial arts, dinner, work from 12-1.) If I can do it, why can't the poor?
Let me start off by saying that I don't disagree with the statistics you quoted or your interpretation of statistics. I'm only disagreeing with what I quoted.
Cooking healthy food and practicing martial arts both come at a cost. This cost can be a cost in money, in time or effort spent, etc. In my experience, poor people usually can't afford that cost easily.
The monetary cost of running is about $100/year, biking considerably less. As for the cost in time, the average person in the bottom 25% of earnings spends 30 minutes/day more watching TV than the average person in the top 25% (2 hours, 6 minutes total). (No breakdown for "poverty" vs "non-poverty" is given.)
I think the poor could manage some exercise or preparation of healthier food if they wanted to.
Do you care for a family on your own? I'm talking about a specific class of people - primarily unwed single mothers - who do not have time for themselves. Their time is eaten up by making money for their families and caring for them.
Simply making the declarations that poor people don't want to work, and poor people are generally fat, even if true, ignore sizable quantities of people for whom exercise and healthy eating are not feasible.
The original data is mostly government statistics and the original sources are all cited. Are you asserting that heritage lied about the contents of the reports they cite?
Or are you simply saying "people I don't like wrote the report, therefore it must be invalid"?
I'm saying obesity among America's poor is a real problem and there are studies that support that claim that come from somewhere other than a conservative think tank dedicated to keeping the rich rich and keeping the government from helping the poor.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-2004/crash-at...