No truly enlightened person would claim that someone else's honest, peaceful attempt to teach their children truth (as they see it, however wrong they may be) is child abuse. Just saying.
Really? How much do you know about Fred Phelps and his family, out of curiosity?
All in all, by the end of it, if you don't believe in dinosaurs, you've managed to ignore rock solid (pun intended) evidence presented to you before your eyes.
Five minutes in the primate house of any major metropolitan zoo should be enough to convince any thinking person that humans are part of the same evolutionary tree, but it's obviously not. If you've been indoctrinated as a child to believe certain absurd things in order to save your soul from an eternity of torment, you may not be able to shake off the bullshit just by reading author X, taking course Y, or visiting exhibit Z.
Religion is nothing but child abuse, and no truly enlightened society would tolerate it.
Follow the rules and test the app well before submission.
Which rules are those? The rules that are in place when I begin development, or the new and improved rules that Jobs pulls out of his ass the day before I upload the submission?
There are also many high profile consumer-accessible apps that are more than "some single person business knocking out something in 2 weeks" that are selling very well.
Such as?
The only ones I see are ports of existing applications from other platforms where they were developed first. Your argument will have more merit if we start to see entirely new nontrivial applications emerge on the iOS platforms. So far that has not happened.
There are many professional developers taking the platform seriously with successful apps.
Sure. Those developers are creating enterprise apps that don't require App Store distribution, and that you or I will never see unless we work for the org or division that uses them.
The idea that a consumer-accessible computing platform can flourish under terms like Apple's is utterly unprecedented. Even game console development is unfettered by comparison.
it's not hard to understand at all, but the key thing is that the vast, vast majority of apps are approved,
The "vast, vast majority" of those approved apps are trivial exercises, a week's work at most for a competent basement hacker.
Complex, interesting applications are extremely risky to develop under Apple's TOS, and the more interesting they are, the riskier. Why should anyone spend several man-years and hundreds of thousands of dollars writing for the iPhone/iPad platforms, if they see other people who did the same thing having their work thrown out at the whim of some turtleneck-clad megalomaniac?
Apple is making it up as they go along. Professional developers will not take their platform seriously until they stop doing that.
Democracy doesn't mean the tyranny of the majority should run unchecked. Almost 80% of people in general believe in an invisible sky wizard, so without safeguards to keep the religious majority from running roughshod over reality, "democracy" is eight wolves making the rules for two sheep.
How was the choice to stick with power-of-two resolution increases a "bad" decision? If you just want your programs to look like complete ass, then by all means, design them in a resolution- and aspect ratio-independent way.
Resolution-independent design and fractional scaling are two things that work a whole lot better in theory than they ever will in practice.
The rich are the ones who need protecting from the poor rising up and taking what they have. The poor are the ones that if they were much poorer would rise up and take what they need from the rich.
Perhaps in the pages of Marx and Engels this is true, but in this version of reality, most crimes of both property and violence are perpetrated by poor people against other poor people.
You could also argue that a subset of the rich, in the guise of bankers, brokers, and other nonproducers, are the ones doing most of the stealing from poor and rich alike.
Either outlook is a more realistic model than that bit of simplistic class-baiting goofiness.
The more I see stories like this the more I think Steve Jobs (may his turtleneck never sag) is losing the plot and turning into some kind of digital Caligula.
Just as an example, the Lithium ion sympathetically resonates at 60 Hz in conjunction with the Earth's magnetic field, and moves on a vector so that it can more easily penetrate things like the Blood Brain Barrier.
It's always perilous to put words in dead peoples' mouths, but IMHO it would be quite a stretch to think that the authors of the Constitution wouldn't consider today's Federal government to be "out of control." You're right in saying that the founders were hardly paragons of justice themselves, but they did have some very definite ideas regarding the proper limits of central power, and we've strayed a long way from the path they had in mind. Fyngerz's original reply only hints at some of those departures.
The real problem isn't regressive or progressive nature of a given tax, it's the idea that the government is making value judgments as to who is "rich" and who is "poor."
In the past, many middle-class people have supported Federal and state tax increases that "soak the rich," only to find that, oh, by the way, they are now considered "rich."
Slashdot Mirror
No truly enlightened person would claim that someone else's honest, peaceful attempt to teach their children truth (as they see it, however wrong they may be) is child abuse. Just saying.
Really? How much do you know about Fred Phelps and his family, out of curiosity?
I also have the natural right to build a nuclear weapon and keep it in my basement
Yeah, and exactly who's going to stop you if you want to do that and have the means to do it?
You're basically a state-level actor at that point, not a citizen.
The fact that they are hard to get.
I can kill more people with a gallon of gasoline than you can with a gun, so no, that must not be it.
Anyone with a decent sound card in their PC already has a better DAQ rig.
All in all, by the end of it, if you don't believe in dinosaurs, you've managed to ignore rock solid (pun intended) evidence presented to you before your eyes.
Five minutes in the primate house of any major metropolitan zoo should be enough to convince any thinking person that humans are part of the same evolutionary tree, but it's obviously not. If you've been indoctrinated as a child to believe certain absurd things in order to save your soul from an eternity of torment, you may not be able to shake off the bullshit just by reading author X, taking course Y, or visiting exhibit Z.
Religion is nothing but child abuse, and no truly enlightened society would tolerate it.
Does an educational publishing house exist to disseminate information to the people who will use it to improve our society?
Absolutely. It just doesn't look like a traditional scholarly institution.
Follow the rules and test the app well before submission.
Which rules are those? The rules that are in place when I begin development, or the new and improved rules that Jobs pulls out of his ass the day before I upload the submission?
There are also many high profile consumer-accessible apps that are more than "some single person business knocking out something in 2 weeks" that are selling very well.
Such as?
The only ones I see are ports of existing applications from other platforms where they were developed first. Your argument will have more merit if we start to see entirely new nontrivial applications emerge on the iOS platforms. So far that has not happened.
There are many professional developers taking the platform seriously with successful apps.
Sure. Those developers are creating enterprise apps that don't require App Store distribution, and that you or I will never see unless we work for the org or division that uses them.
The idea that a consumer-accessible computing platform can flourish under terms like Apple's is utterly unprecedented. Even game console development is unfettered by comparison.
it's not hard to understand at all, but the key thing is that the vast, vast majority of apps are approved,
The "vast, vast majority" of those approved apps are trivial exercises, a week's work at most for a competent basement hacker.
Complex, interesting applications are extremely risky to develop under Apple's TOS, and the more interesting they are, the riskier. Why should anyone spend several man-years and hundreds of thousands of dollars writing for the iPhone/iPad platforms, if they see other people who did the same thing having their work thrown out at the whim of some turtleneck-clad megalomaniac?
Apple is making it up as they go along. Professional developers will not take their platform seriously until they stop doing that.
Of course, calculators have as much to do with math as telescopes have to do with astrophysics.
Have you ever noticed that under that paradigm, businesses get more and more evil?
You keep using that word. I do not believe you know what it means.
...nor has there been a mandate to sell off farms Zimbabwe style with a mandatory percentage of the crops going to the urban workers.
What do you call the General Motors bailout, with a mandatory (and large) percentage of stock going to the UAW?
If his engine has a knock sensor that pulls timing by a large amount on the cheaper gas, then I can see how he'd lose some MPG.
Democracy doesn't mean the tyranny of the majority should run unchecked. Almost 80% of people in general believe in an invisible sky wizard, so without safeguards to keep the religious majority from running roughshod over reality, "democracy" is eight wolves making the rules for two sheep.
How was the choice to stick with power-of-two resolution increases a "bad" decision? If you just want your programs to look like complete ass, then by all means, design them in a resolution- and aspect ratio-independent way.
Resolution-independent design and fractional scaling are two things that work a whole lot better in theory than they ever will in practice.
What're you doing with that carrot, Peter. No, wait, no, seriously, man, ...
The rich are the ones who need protecting from the poor rising up and taking what they have.
The poor are the ones that if they were much poorer would rise up and take what they need from the rich.
Perhaps in the pages of Marx and Engels this is true, but in this version of reality, most crimes of both property and violence are perpetrated by poor people against other poor people.
You could also argue that a subset of the rich, in the guise of bankers, brokers, and other nonproducers, are the ones doing most of the stealing from poor and rich alike.
Either outlook is a more realistic model than that bit of simplistic class-baiting goofiness.
The more I see stories like this the more I think Steve Jobs (may his turtleneck never sag) is losing the plot and turning into some kind of digital Caligula.
More like the second coming of Howard Hughes.
And if they don't, the godless left will invent new reasons to hate them.
How do you feel about Scientologists? Do you want to see them take over the government?
No?
Well, now you know how the "godless left" feels about you.
Just as an example, the Lithium ion sympathetically resonates at 60 Hz in conjunction with the Earth's magnetic field, and moves on a vector so that it can more easily penetrate things like the Blood Brain Barrier.
Stop. You're killing me
... who verified that humans can, in fact, engage in photosynthesis.
Why would we care what the founders thought about governmental theory?
Um, because those thoughts, as encoded in the Constitution, are supposed to be the foundation for our laws?
Who says we have an out-of-control governmnent?
It's always perilous to put words in dead peoples' mouths, but IMHO it would be quite a stretch to think that the authors of the Constitution wouldn't consider today's Federal government to be "out of control." You're right in saying that the founders were hardly paragons of justice themselves, but they did have some very definite ideas regarding the proper limits of central power, and we've strayed a long way from the path they had in mind. Fyngerz's original reply only hints at some of those departures.
The real problem isn't regressive or progressive nature of a given tax, it's the idea that the government is making value judgments as to who is "rich" and who is "poor."
In the past, many middle-class people have supported Federal and state tax increases that "soak the rich," only to find that, oh, by the way, they are now considered "rich."