Re: Strange...
Does the bear pope shit in the vatican woods ?
568 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Nov 2011
.....is only really relevant if you have paid money for apps from the store.
I suspect that at least half of users (like me) only ever use free apps which can be downloaded again for free from whatever other app store a new 'phone supports, so you are not really affected by any kind of lock in. I suspect this even applies for people who have cheaply paid for apps (I would not be particularly bothered about spending a few quid re-downloading a good app again for a different OS every couple of years). It's just not a big enough cash loss to be a major factor in choosing a new 'phone.
Now that most of the major OS's support most of the 'essential' apps that most people want, the platform difference is just not a relevant factor any more (who cares if one app store has 2,000,000 apps and the other only has 10,000 as long as both have the 10 or so you actually want ?)
As in my other post above - the e-mails that are being re-downloaded are not ones where the user has set the POP client to leave them on the server after download - they are ones that have been supposedly downloaded and deleted but which were actually moved to an 'All Mail' folder instead of deleting them and which have then been re-downloaded after the transfer to yahoo (but ironically are not visible at all on the yahoo web client interface).
This 'All Mail' folder in google mail is not specifically hidden but is not at all obvious unless you go looking for it on the web access interface for the google mail client (so people who always access via a POP client will never even suspect it exists, whether they have set the client to delete from the server on download or not).
Not actually the case. I use Sky e-mail via POP (why ? because their IMAP service sucked arse also but that's for another day) and had the e-mails set to be left if they were checked by one of the mobile devices (phones etc) but deleted when my main PC downloaded them.
Google, however, decided that what I meant by 'delete' was actually 'move to another folder called 'All Mail' which you can only actually find by searching through sub-menus and contains every e-mail you ever received or sent from this account and then keep them for slightly longer than the human race is expected to exist'.
It is this normally unseen folder that is being re-downloaded when the changeover happens - so the normal user checking their google account online would see an empty inbox just before the transfer then get everything ever (including, amusingly, shit that google had filtered out as spam without even letting your POP client see it at all) downloading to their POP client but still not visible on the new Yahoo account online.
So overall, a really well executed plan......
Once again I am astonished and dissapointed at the rampant level of Evilism displayed on ElReg's comments.
Us evil people are still people too, you know ! All this anti-evil rhetoric is enough to make me want to retreat into my volcano lair*.......
*and plan your untimely demise.**
**as usual.
Exactly, it's like a company car scheme. The employee gets a widget / car they would not otherwise be able to afford and the company still essentially spends the same as they would have anyway on widgetry / transport.
So financially for the company it's no different but for the employee it's an attactive bonus to continued loyalty to the company (i.e. if you leave the job, your phone / car goes too).
Absolutely. The truth is that in the modern world, an album or movie is simply not worth £10-20 a pop. The market needs to adjust to this reality and come to terms with it. Being a sucessful rock star or movie producer does not mean you should automatically be a millionaire (although as with most other similar industries, being an unsucessful one does mean you should be dirt poor).
Yes, more freetards go down the free / illegal route because it's consequence free but I suspect that it would be significanlty reduced by having a service that only costs ~£10 a month and gave you access to everything you wanted.
It needs to be easy, convenient and cheap otherwise the legal paid model will never outcompete the illegal one.
It might be just me, but when I read something off the screen (whether it be 'phone or monitor) I tend to keep my eyes pretty much on the center of the screen and scroll the text past them as I read, my eyes only tend to go to the bottom of the page when it has reached the bottom of it's scroll range, so I'm not sure how this would work out.....
Let's face it, anyone taking on a 4G contract (especially over 24 months) before the other carriers launch their 4G services is kerayzee. The comedy 500Mb cap on a £31 pm contract will be gone as soon as EE have any actual competition and anyone stuck on one of those contracts will surely be kicking their early adopting selves.
The handset costs will also fall exponentially as the actual addition of 4G ability to an existing design is a fairly trivial and low cost process so plenty of 4G handsets will be available subsidised on £20-25 pm contracts too.
Kind of correctish....
Type I diabetes is caused by a failure to produce insulin in the pancreas (as you desribe). This is usually diagnosed early in life (at puberty or thereabouts) as this is when the pancreas starts to be more stressed and gives up the ghost.
Type II diabetes is caused by (still not that well understood) failures in the insulin receptors on other cells of the body (notably fat, muscle and liver cells) so whilst the pancreas is still producing plenty of insulin, the body is not reacting to it appropriately (later on you can get insulin production falling off but this is more often than not caused by the individuals' natural pancreatic insulin production being suppressed by the treatment insulin they are taking to supplement their natural production as a consequence of their diabetes).
Both types are exacerbated by poor diet and high wapness but neither are caused by them.
The refinedness or lack thereof of sugar intake is somewhat irrelevant other than refined sugar can usually be consumed in greater quantities than other types as it is more concentrated and quickly absorbed into the blood (e.g. you only have to drink a liter of coke to get the same sugar as 4 apples and the apple sugar is absorbed over 1-2 hours instead of the coke sugar's 15-30 minutes) - the height of the peak blood sugar level attained after eating is what causes all the problems arising from diabetes.
She probably avoided diabetes by not having a genetic tendency to developing diabetes.
Diabetes is not a disease that you catch from a high sugar intake or from being a fat fuck.
It is a disease that you are genetically pre-disposed to develop but (in the case of type II diabetes) has varying severity. The level of severity is adversely affected by your sugar intake and level of wappitude so it is perfectly possible for two otherwise identical individuals (with a genetic tendency* to type II diabetes) to have different levels of compromise from the condition - one with a 'healthy' diet and active lifestyle may never notice the condition whereas one with a coke 'n' couch** lifestyle may well be crippled by diabetic side effects from an early age.
However, a person with none of the genetic predisposition to diabetes can chod down on as much sweet sweet sugar as they like and never develop diabetes.
* I say genetic tendency because it is a multi-factorial inheritance aetiology so you also get variation in severity from person to person depending on which out of the various factors they have in their genome.
**Choice of champions.
Surely it's just the equivalent of the (already self aware, let's face it) google servers saying:
"That thing you serached for does not exist, but this is what pretty much everybody else is looking at on the internet at the moment so I presume you will want to see it too...."