Thousands of apps

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 02:42:15 -0400, Ron wrote:

On 8/9/2014 12:23 PM, Norm Fowler wrote:
Stephen Wolstenholme used his keyboard to write :
On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 15:55:46 +0100, "Norman"
wrote:

Couldn't find a single usenet app for Windows 8. That means nobody
cares about usenet. All they want is social networks.

Forte Agent is OK on W8. I'll never use social networks.

Steve

MesNews also works quite will.

Those are not "apps".

From Merriam Wewbster online:

First, "app":

1 app
noun \ˈap\
Definition of APP
: application 1a(3)

Second, the entry referred to above:

ap·pli·ca·tion
noun \ˌa-plə-ˈk�-shən\

1
: an act of applying:
a (1) : an act of putting to use application of new techniques (2) :
a use to which something is put new applications for old remedies (3)
: a program (as a word processor or a spreadsheet) that performs one of
the major tasks for which a computer is used

(See #3)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 19:17:46 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Good Guy typed:
On 09/08/2014 19:26, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
If someone uses Windows Live Mail to post to a newsgroup I frequent,
unless he adds the needed s manually (which almost nobody does) he
quickly ends in up in my killfile.

That is why I always advocate people to use HTML posts on all
newsgroups that supports it. This is 21st Century and HTML can avoid
all sorts of problems such as quoting of replied posts.

Actually no!

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft has moved on to the 21st century
while its users have remained in the 20th century technology.
Newsgroups are 20th century technology. I am not saying NG are bad
but I am simply saying it hasn't kept up-to-date with the effluxion
of time.

No what you are saying is newsgroups are 20th technology and not
valuable. And you are not capable of keeping older technology with the
new. Why can't you adapt? It is really simple and as Gary Kildall once
said, any half wit could do it.

Apparently, not *any* half-wit :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:15:33 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

(3) : a program (as a word processor or a spreadsheet) that performs one of
the major tasks for which a computer is used



There's no question about it; "app" is short for "application" and
doesn't really mean any special kind of application. But
unfortunately, the shortened form is widely used by manufacturers and
smart-phone and tablet users just for applications that are for
smart-phones or tablets, and not regular applications.

Like you, apparently, I hate that usage, but that's the way it is.
When Norman wrote "couldn't find a single usenet app for Windows 8,"
that's undoubtedly what he meant, and like it or not, that's the way
it is, and that's the way I understood it.

But I'm telling you what you already know, am I not? vbg

On 8/10/2014 5:15 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 02:42:15 -0400, Ron wrote:

On 8/9/2014 12:23 PM, Norm Fowler wrote:
Stephen Wolstenholme used his keyboard to write :
On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 15:55:46 +0100, "Norman"
wrote:

Couldn't find a single usenet app for Windows 8. That means nobody
cares about usenet. All they want is social networks.

Forte Agent is OK on W8. I'll never use social networks.

Steve

MesNews also works quite will.

Those are not "apps".

From Merriam Wewbster online:

First, "app":

1 app
noun \ˈap\
Definition of APP
: application 1a(3)

Second, the entry referred to above:

ap·pli·ca·tion
noun \ˌa-plə-ˈk�-shən\

1
: an act of applying:
a (1) : an act of putting to use application of new techniques (2) :
a use to which something is put new applications for old remedies (3)
: a program (as a word processor or a spreadsheet) that performs one of
the major tasks for which a computer is used

(See #3)


Missed the quotation marks, eh?

On 8/10/2014 3:21 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-08-10 4:19 AM, Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 3:42 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/9/2014 2:43 PM, Big Al wrote:
And from reading, I hear Facebook is falling out of favor.

Cite?


A simple search can find a few articles and studies on Facebook
populations. The key is to look at the age of different user bases.

There's one Princeton study that models social media as an infectious
disease. Spreads rapidly, then eventually dies out. That study iirc,
stated/claimed that if the model is true then FB will lose about 75-80%
of the user base in 3-4 yrs.

The key to longevity of social media including FB is to growing or
stabilizing the user base across all generations. FB most recent
increase is in the older age group population, the younger age groups
declining in small but measurable percentages - and maybe for a valid
reason...the younger doesn't wish for their parent, grandparents to be
reading or seeing their social content (i.e. its pretty hard to tell
grandma you don't want to be her friend g!)

How it all shakes out in the long run is unknown...the bottom line for
survival is the ability to generate revenue to support the services
features.



Site?

Search "business news about facebook", and skip the top hits, which are
all FB pages. First non-FB hit was:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/faceb...ses-1407341983


The current P/E ratio is 79, with zero dividends. The numbers mean it's
a highly speculative investment, IOW. sheer gambling. That's not good. I
mean, it's good for wotsisname as long as there are suckers, er, I mean
investors willing to buy the stock, but unless there is rapid expansion
in both user base and ad revenue, the stock price will fall towards more
realistic levels, which means a lot of people will lose money.

OTOH, earnings and user base are both increasing. Question is, who is
signing up, and who is leaving? As pointed out above, the demographics
matter. The fact that ad rates are going up suggests that the increase
in earnings can't be credited to an increased user base.

FWIW, I ignore all ads on FB. I also ignore those "Related..." posts
that often pop up when I click a Like.

Have a good day,


I use adblocker and adblocker plus. I don't see the ads.

On 8/10/2014 4:29 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 3:42 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/9/2014 2:43 PM, Big Al wrote:
And from reading, I hear Facebook is falling out of favor.

Cite?


A simple search can find a few articles and studies on Facebook
populations. The key is to look at the age of different user bases.

There's one Princeton study that models social media as an infectious
disease. Spreads rapidly, then eventually dies out. That study iirc,
stated/claimed that if the model is true then FB will lose about 75-80%
of the user base in 3-4 yrs.



Site?

Search engine not working ?
Use Google or Bing and search with the terms 'facebook princeton study'

The results will provide pros and cons that should easily entertain your
need for sources.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/23/fac...g-credibility/

Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 4:29 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 3:42 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/9/2014 2:43 PM, Big Al wrote:
And from reading, I hear Facebook is falling out of favor.

Cite?


A simple search can find a few articles and studies on Facebook
populations. The key is to look at the age of different user bases.

There's one Princeton study that models social media as an infectious
disease. Spreads rapidly, then eventually dies out. That study iirc,
stated/claimed that if the model is true then FB will lose about 75-80%
of the user base in 3-4 yrs.



Site?

Search engine not working ?
Use Google or Bing and search with the terms 'facebook princeton study'

The results will provide pros and cons that should easily entertain your
need for sources.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/23/fac...g-credibility/


That's one link, I'm sure you found others now that you took the time to
go fishing instead of waiting for fishermen.

Your link proves that what I wrote was accurate (a Princeton study on FB
etc.) thus you answered your own question (Site?). Thanks!








--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:24:11 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:15:33 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

(3) : a program (as a word processor or a spreadsheet) that performs one of
the major tasks for which a computer is used

There's no question about it; "app" is short for "application" and
doesn't really mean any special kind of application. But
unfortunately, the shortened form is widely used by manufacturers and
smart-phone and tablet users just for applications that are for
smart-phones or tablets, and not regular applications.

Like you, apparently, I hate that usage, but that's the way it is.
When Norman wrote "couldn't find a single usenet app for Windows 8,"
that's undoubtedly what he meant, and like it or not, that's the way
it is, and that's the way I understood it.

But I'm telling you what you already know, am I not? vbg

Actually, I don't hate using "app" for small (or large) cell phone or
tablet programs, but I also use it for desktop and laptop programs - as
I and others have for years.

I just wanted to attempt to educate Ron :-)

I haven't read his reply yet, although I am guessing what it will look
like ;-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:13:57 -0400, Ron wrote:

On 8/10/2014 5:15 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 02:42:15 -0400, Ron wrote:

On 8/9/2014 12:23 PM, Norm Fowler wrote:
Stephen Wolstenholme used his keyboard to write :
On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 15:55:46 +0100, "Norman"
wrote:

Couldn't find a single usenet app for Windows 8. That means nobody
cares about usenet. All they want is social networks.

Forte Agent is OK on W8. I'll never use social networks.

Steve

MesNews also works quite will.

Those are not "apps".

From Merriam Wewbster online:

First, "app":

1 app
noun \ˈap\
Definition of APP
: application 1a(3)

Second, the entry referred to above:

ap·pli·ca·tion
noun \ˌa-plə-ˈk�-shən\

1
: an act of applying:
a (1) : an act of putting to use application of new techniques (2) :
a use to which something is put new applications for old remedies (3)
: a program (as a word processor or a spreadsheet) that performs one of
the major tasks for which a computer is used

(See #3)


Missed the quotation marks, eh?

No.

People use quotation marks for all sorts of reasons, even sometimes for
no reason at all, but often for words they seem to uncomfortable with.

I had no way to read your mind, and you provided no clues.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 8/10/2014 9:03 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 4:29 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 3:42 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/9/2014 2:43 PM, Big Al wrote:
And from reading, I hear Facebook is falling out of favor.

Cite?


A simple search can find a few articles and studies on Facebook
populations. The key is to look at the age of different user bases.

There's one Princeton study that models social media as an infectious
disease. Spreads rapidly, then eventually dies out. That study iirc,
stated/claimed that if the model is true then FB will lose about
75-80%
of the user base in 3-4 yrs.



Site?

Search engine not working ?
Use Google or Bing and search with the terms 'facebook princeton
study'

The results will provide pros and cons that should easily entertain your
need for sources.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/23/fac...g-credibility/



That's one link, I'm sure you found others now that you took the time to
go fishing instead of waiting for fishermen.

Your link proves that what I wrote was accurate (a Princeton study on FB
etc.) thus you answered your own question (Site?). Thanks!

Princeton's study is complete BS.

Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 9:03 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 4:29 PM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/10/2014 3:42 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 8/9/2014 2:43 PM, Big Al wrote:
And from reading, I hear Facebook is falling out of favor.

Cite?


A simple search can find a few articles and studies on Facebook
populations. The key is to look at the age of different user bases.

There's one Princeton study that models social media as an infectious
disease. Spreads rapidly, then eventually dies out. That study iirc,
stated/claimed that if the model is true then FB will lose about
75-80%
of the user base in 3-4 yrs.



Site?

Search engine not working ?
Use Google or Bing and search with the terms 'facebook princeton
study'

The results will provide pros and cons that should easily entertain
your
need for sources.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/23/fac...g-credibility/




That's one link, I'm sure you found others now that you took the time to
go fishing instead of waiting for fishermen.

Your link proves that what I wrote was accurate (a Princeton study on FB
etc.) thus you answered your own question (Site?). Thanks!

Princeton's study is complete BS.



Maybe it was, but you found it on your own. And also found the FB
response using the same model on Princeton's enrollment (about as
equivalent as Princeton's study).



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:31:06 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

Ah, yes, the opinion of an expert, one we can rely on because he has
done a slew of statistical studies.

Hasn't he?

Here's a thought, I remember my teacher Statistics saying: 'One could
prove just about anything with statistics.' ;-)

--
s|b

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:50:41 +0200, s|b wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:31:06 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

Ah, yes, the opinion of an expert, one we can rely on because he has
done a slew of statistical studies.

Hasn't he?

Here's a thought, I remember my teacher Statistics saying: 'One could
prove just about anything with statistics.' ;-)

But note that this corollary follows from that:

One could *disprove* just about anything with statistics.

Somehow I find that comforting :-)

(Actually, both of them!)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:48:43 +0100, John wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:42:15 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Ron wrote:
On 8/9/2014 2:43 PM, Big Al wrote:

SNIP ALL

Your last clip, the pressure cooker article, is not so funny in light of
the Boston Marathon bombing of a year or so ago.

Actually, the articles you linked to are in my view more informative and
interesting than funny, even if they are on the xkcd site.

That is *not* a complaint, of course...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:30:17 -0400, Paul wrote:

Silver Slimer wrote:
On 10/08/2014 4:38 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:42:15 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

There's one Princeton study that models social media as an infectious
disease. Spreads rapidly, then eventually dies out. That study iirc,
stated/claimed that if the model is true then FB will lose about 75-80%
of the user base in 3-4 yrs.

That what happened to me. I caught the FB disease but I got better
very quickly!

I doubt that they will LOSE the userbase as much as the userbase will
simply become inactive. Facebook is still one of the most convenient
ways to communicate with a number of people at once, to plan events and
to share photos. Unless someone comes up with a better alternative
(which isn't a direct copy like Google+) anytime soon, I doubt it'll
disappear.


It would disappear, the way other failed experiments disappear.
It gets replaced by the "next great thing". When the thing you
make is fluffy, it's easy for another fluffy thing to bump you off.

I agree. MySpace got bumped off by Facebook, and Facebook will very likely
get pushed aside by something else.