If only that's what this dev had been complaining about in his blog, instead of whining that nobody wants to approve his blatantly rule-breaking app. The in-app purchase rule is one of the more egregious ones and I'd love to see it go.
It sucks that he can't get through to the reviewers. That said, his app is clearly violating Apple's guidelines. There's no ambiguity or inconsistency here: you cannot use your app to direct users to buy things from you without using the in-app purchase system. (Yes, this requirement blows goats. But it is clear and straightforward.) He gets rejected once for directing users to purchase an account at their website in the app description. His solution to this isn't the logical step of *remove the offending bit*, it's *remove it and replace it with a button that does the same thing.* And he's surprised it gets rejected again? If ever he does get ahold of the review team, they aren't going to give a shit about his "but it isn't convenient or sensible for us or our users" excuse - of course it isn't! This rule wasn't convenient or sensible for the Kindle app either, but them's the rules in the walled garden and the reviewers aren't going to give him special treatment. (TBH I wouldn't be surprised if they ultra-low-prioritized his requests in favor of responding to developers who have actual fixable issues.)
You benefit by living in a society where everyone has a reasonable degree of education. Those people are more employable (better for the economy unless you live in an agrarian subsistence society, less chance of turning to crime) and as fellow voters are better able to understand the issues (I know it seems otherwise sometimes, but imagine how much worse it could be if a huge percentage of the population literally were ignoramuses).
Not only are the sensors not the same (as I indicated to you in my reply above), but the sensor is only part of the equation, particularly in low-light conditions. Post-processing of the limited and very noisy data gathered by the sensor in low-light conditions also has a huge effect on what you can get out of it. The processor in the iPhone 5 has improved algorithms. Most importantly, real-world reviews have noted improvements (not hugely dramatic ones for the most part).
I'm not talking about solvency. I'm talking about taking working people's money, telling them that you need to take extra so that they can build up a trust fund for their future, and then spending this extra money. The fact that there is a ledger somewhere saying exactly what is owed does not change the fact that the money is gone.
This is what you're not getting. When the trust fund buys bonds, the value is no more gone than if they had put it in annuities or commodities as you suggest (in fact the value is more secure than if it were in annuities or commodities!). Those bonds get paid back. They don't disappear into the ether.
They government did not "buy bonds". They bought their own bonds and then spent the money. The analog is that you took your life savings of $500,000, wrote yourself an IOU, and then spent the money. Sure, you have a piece of paper that says $500,000 - but that doesn't mean you'll ever see it.
Just because two entities are under the same umbrella does not mean they are one and the same. The SS trust fund is separate from the Treasury. They even have different income streams (though that's not really necessary) Your analogy would be better like this: I take my $500,000 life savings and give it to my wife, who writes me an IOU (plus interest!) and then spends the money - and my wife has her own income stream and has never failed to pay off an IOU.
I'm going to stop here. I agree with some of your points and disagree with many others and I imagine we could sit here all day running in circles... But I have some meat in the fridge that needs grilling!
There are two arguments going on here and I think you're conflating the two. One is that the US government is getting itself into more debt than it should. You and I might actually agree on that at least to some degree. The second argument is that the Social Security trust fund is bankrupt, or has been stolen from, or scammed. This is what I am arguing against, because it is thoroughly not true. The SS trust fund is a separate entity from the Treasury. The fact that they both happen to be part of the federal government has no bearing on the solvency of one versus the other.
Yes, this is the argument that you all fell for. First of all, you should have questioned why Social Security needed a "trust fund" in the first place, after running so long without one.
The Social Security trust fund was set up in 1939. I wasn't around to "fall for" anything -- not even my parents were!
Social Security tries to be as pay-as-you-go as possible (the current workforce paying for current retirees), but there are issues with this:
* With a growing population, sometimes you take in more money than you pay out. Should that extra cash just be burned?
* Recessions/depressions can suddenly reduce tax income, but retirees will still need their social security. There needs to be a buffer.
* Changing demographics also require a buffer. The proportion of retirees to workers was great when the Boomers were in the workforce; as that group transitions to retirement the ratio changes unfavorably. To keep things pay-as-you-go we would have to increase taxes a lot on current workers so they can pay for their parents. Instead, the Boomers themselves paid enough extra to build up the trust fund in an attempt to cover this. This is why we increased SS taxes in the 80's and started building up the fund more than previously.
People talk as if the money in the trust fund is gone. It is not gone any more than anyone's money is gone when they invest in something; the value is still there (and hopefully actually is increasing, with the caveat that investing also risks loss of value, but see me next paragraph). If I take my life savings of $500,000 and buy bonds, I'm not suddenly broke. I have $500,000 in bonds (and at the end of a few years of interest payments, I'll have even more).
Second, there are some really good investments if the argument is persuasive enough:
The safety and stability of US Treasury bonds is so good that people and institutions continue to buy them at a negative interest rate. Anything else is adding risk to money that has to be there when the payees retire.
The worst thing that can happen is the insurance companies fail, in which case you are right back where we are today, which is the tax payers are on the hook for the "fund".
Doing it this way exposes the taxpayers to all the risk and none of the reward. I might loan $10,000 to my Uncle Sam so he can open a rib joint, knowing that even if the investment doesn't pay off enough he's willing to pay it back out of his own pocket. That's one thing; Uncle Sam at least has the rib joint. What you're proposing is that I loan $10,000 to my neighbor Mr. Goldman under the premise that, well, my Uncle Sam will still cover any losses because Mr. Goldman is such an important member of the community we can't have him going bankrupt. That may be true (and I thoroughly disagree with allowing Mr. Goldman to get into that position to begin with), but I've exposed Uncle Sam to all the risk while Mr. Goldman gets to take advantage.
As for whether there is any reward for the investment at all...
Spend it and then pretend it was "invested".
This has strayed beyond the "is SS solvent" argument, but I'll bite anyway.
Do you drive on roads? Use airports? Enjoy the security of police, fire departments, the US military (not that I agree with everything the latter is asked to do)? Clean drin
They didn't "take the money and spend it on the general fund." Should a trust fund just pile up its money and let it sit there, losing more and more value to inflation every year? Of course not; that would be idiotic. It should be invested -- but, given the importance of the security of that money, it needs to be invested very safely indeed. US treasury bonds happen to be the safest investment in the world; there is a reason people are happy to buy them up even now, when the interest rate is slightly negative (generally its slightly positive, but only slightly).
As such, the Social Security trust fund mainly buys and holds treasury bonds rather than a giant pile of cash. But that investment is perfectly safe (again, people invest in US Treasury bonds for exactly that reason; the US always pays its debts). It also allows that money to be put to use in the mean time, rather than be essentially taken out of the economy and hoarded in an account somewhere (aren't free-market fans always touting the power of investment? I thought that's why we have to keep capital gains taxes so low!). I know it's weird to think of an entity lending money to itself, but it is a fairly normal practice.
Yeah, we should lock this kid up with only criminals to socialize with, where he can (out of desire or necessity) join a neo-nazi prison gang who will reinforce all his fucked-up worldviews. And then a few years later we can throw him back into society and everything will be peachy-fucking-keen.
Not only is the philosophy you're touting far more damaging to society as a whole, your RAWR PUNISHMENT attitude isn't even supported by the victim in this case. Who is being served by throwing the kid in prison?
...well, now the fucker needs locked up, or at the very least institutionalized until they can figure out what the flying fuck is wrong with his brain.
Prison is going to do what for his mental health exactly? Then note that Leo Traynor's condition for not going to the police was that the parents put the kid in therapy.
Consumer Reports finds it totally usable; though of course you can they could be lying, too. As you can claim I am too, when I say I find it better than the pre-iOS 6 Google Maps version (so far I've only had one issue finding something, and the smoothness of the new vector-based maps when scrolling and zooming is ten times better). Accept everything that supports your opinion, and call everything else a lie - it's a simple way to always be right.
Apple's maps are definitely not perfect (particularly outside the US), but "total garbage" is total bullshit.
It's been about three days since Google chairman Eric Schmidt publicly acknowledged they have no maps app ready yet, and even before that the idea that they'd submitted an app was no more than rumor. You state your bullshit in a mighty factual tone...
Do they even have an API for that yet? What third-party apps integrate with Apple maps?
Yes, the API is part of iOS 6 and was announced back in June along with everything else. Most of the major (supporting multiple cities) transit apps already support it, as do many of the city-specific apps in most major cities (well, in the US anyway. I pay no attention to transit in other countries but I'd imagine it isn't much different for European cities at least) and the number of apps taking advantage of the integration is growing by the day.
So, how is Apple taking feedback? You can't just go to the map, click on a POI, and say "edit."
Actually, that is EXACTLY how you do it (and that method is in addition to the "report a problem" button on the options screen that others have already mentioned).
FWIW, in the restaurant industry the same general rule of thumb applies: take your wholesale food cost for a dish and multiply by three; that should be about the retail price of the dish. That pays for the chef, the dishwashers, wait staff, rent, and all sorts of other costs. Simply looking at the parts (food) costs without taking all the other business operations into consideration is idiotic.
Giggle? You mean laugh-out-fucking-loud. You just linked to a year-and-a-half-old rumor, since proven false, about automatic app updates (we're talking about OS updates here).
Since you seem to be getting upmodded, I'm going to respond to this.
You need an ID to do almost anything these days. I personally think that's wrong, but it's a reality.
The only things I can remember hauling my ID out for over the past year are (1) paying with credit cards (because I never bother to sign them; if the card is signed, retailers are not allowed to ask for ID), (2) when I got a speeding ticket (not an issue for those who don't drive), and (3) for companies to hold on to when they want some kind of temporary collateral for a rental (i.e. renting paintball equipment). Perhaps your lifestyle requires frequent use of ID, but there are plenty of ways to live that do not. Note also that many places that ask you for ID do it simply because it is the easiest route; if you don't have a government-issued photo ID, most of them will be happy to switch to an alternate method (for example, utility companies).
I have not met anyone who does not have an ID of any sort. I have known and been dirt poor, homeless, and destitute in my life. I still had an ID.
Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. Studies show that in Pennsylvania alone there is anywhere between 3/4 to 1.5 million voters without ID; even the people who support the voter ID laws and claim those studies are overestimating the issue claim it's at least 100,000 people. The fact that you don't know these people doesn't mean shit; they are voters with a constitutional right to vote whether you like it or not.
It is the only way to efficiently prevent the rampant voter fraud that is happening in certain important counties in this county that largely decide the fate of the entire nation.
Slashdot Mirror
If only that's what this dev had been complaining about in his blog, instead of whining that nobody wants to approve his blatantly rule-breaking app. The in-app purchase rule is one of the more egregious ones and I'd love to see it go.
AC is right on about the enterprise distribution system. No Apple App Store involved.
It sucks that he can't get through to the reviewers. That said, his app is clearly violating Apple's guidelines. There's no ambiguity or inconsistency here: you cannot use your app to direct users to buy things from you without using the in-app purchase system. (Yes, this requirement blows goats. But it is clear and straightforward.) He gets rejected once for directing users to purchase an account at their website in the app description. His solution to this isn't the logical step of *remove the offending bit*, it's *remove it and replace it with a button that does the same thing.* And he's surprised it gets rejected again? If ever he does get ahold of the review team, they aren't going to give a shit about his "but it isn't convenient or sensible for us or our users" excuse - of course it isn't! This rule wasn't convenient or sensible for the Kindle app either, but them's the rules in the walled garden and the reviewers aren't going to give him special treatment. (TBH I wouldn't be surprised if they ultra-low-prioritized his requests in favor of responding to developers who have actual fixable issues.)
You benefit by living in a society where everyone has a reasonable degree of education. Those people are more employable (better for the economy unless you live in an agrarian subsistence society, less chance of turning to crime) and as fellow voters are better able to understand the issues (I know it seems otherwise sometimes, but imagine how much worse it could be if a huge percentage of the population literally were ignoramuses).
If you get lucky they'll start stealing apostrophes next.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what they did. Rather than being 6 to 11 years old, the kids in the movie appear to be 15-20.
Not only are the sensors not the same (as I indicated to you in my reply above), but the sensor is only part of the equation, particularly in low-light conditions. Post-processing of the limited and very noisy data gathered by the sensor in low-light conditions also has a huge effect on what you can get out of it. The processor in the iPhone 5 has improved algorithms. Most importantly, real-world reviews have noted improvements (not hugely dramatic ones for the most part).
It's a different sensor. Perhaps factual knowledge is something the sub-7-digit UID crowd thinks it no longer needs?
I'm not talking about solvency. I'm talking about taking working people's money, telling them that you need to take extra so that they can build up a trust fund for their future, and then spending this extra money. The fact that there is a ledger somewhere saying exactly what is owed does not change the fact that the money is gone.
This is what you're not getting. When the trust fund buys bonds, the value is no more gone than if they had put it in annuities or commodities as you suggest (in fact the value is more secure than if it were in annuities or commodities!). Those bonds get paid back. They don't disappear into the ether.
They government did not "buy bonds". They bought their own bonds and then spent the money. The analog is that you took your life savings of $500,000, wrote yourself an IOU, and then spent the money. Sure, you have a piece of paper that says $500,000 - but that doesn't mean you'll ever see it.
Just because two entities are under the same umbrella does not mean they are one and the same. The SS trust fund is separate from the Treasury. They even have different income streams (though that's not really necessary) Your analogy would be better like this: I take my $500,000 life savings and give it to my wife, who writes me an IOU (plus interest!) and then spends the money - and my wife has her own income stream and has never failed to pay off an IOU.
I'm going to stop here. I agree with some of your points and disagree with many others and I imagine we could sit here all day running in circles... But I have some meat in the fridge that needs grilling!
Yes, this is the argument that you all fell for. First of all, you should have questioned why Social Security needed a "trust fund" in the first place, after running so long without one.
The Social Security trust fund was set up in 1939. I wasn't around to "fall for" anything -- not even my parents were!
Social Security tries to be as pay-as-you-go as possible (the current workforce paying for current retirees), but there are issues with this:
* With a growing population, sometimes you take in more money than you pay out. Should that extra cash just be burned?
* Recessions/depressions can suddenly reduce tax income, but retirees will still need their social security. There needs to be a buffer.
* Changing demographics also require a buffer. The proportion of retirees to workers was great when the Boomers were in the workforce; as that group transitions to retirement the ratio changes unfavorably. To keep things pay-as-you-go we would have to increase taxes a lot on current workers so they can pay for their parents. Instead, the Boomers themselves paid enough extra to build up the trust fund in an attempt to cover this. This is why we increased SS taxes in the 80's and started building up the fund more than previously.
People talk as if the money in the trust fund is gone. It is not gone any more than anyone's money is gone when they invest in something; the value is still there (and hopefully actually is increasing, with the caveat that investing also risks loss of value, but see me next paragraph). If I take my life savings of $500,000 and buy bonds, I'm not suddenly broke. I have $500,000 in bonds (and at the end of a few years of interest payments, I'll have even more).
Second, there are some really good investments if the argument is persuasive enough:
The safety and stability of US Treasury bonds is so good that people and institutions continue to buy them at a negative interest rate . Anything else is adding risk to money that has to be there when the payees retire.
The worst thing that can happen is the insurance companies fail, in which case you are right back where we are today, which is the tax payers are on the hook for the "fund".
Doing it this way exposes the taxpayers to all the risk and none of the reward. I might loan $10,000 to my Uncle Sam so he can open a rib joint, knowing that even if the investment doesn't pay off enough he's willing to pay it back out of his own pocket. That's one thing; Uncle Sam at least has the rib joint. What you're proposing is that I loan $10,000 to my neighbor Mr. Goldman under the premise that, well, my Uncle Sam will still cover any losses because Mr. Goldman is such an important member of the community we can't have him going bankrupt. That may be true (and I thoroughly disagree with allowing Mr. Goldman to get into that position to begin with), but I've exposed Uncle Sam to all the risk while Mr. Goldman gets to take advantage.
As for whether there is any reward for the investment at all...
Spend it and then pretend it was "invested".
This has strayed beyond the "is SS solvent" argument, but I'll bite anyway.
Do you drive on roads? Use airports? Enjoy the security of police, fire departments, the US military (not that I agree with everything the latter is asked to do)? Clean drin
They didn't "take the money and spend it on the general fund." Should a trust fund just pile up its money and let it sit there, losing more and more value to inflation every year? Of course not; that would be idiotic. It should be invested -- but, given the importance of the security of that money, it needs to be invested very safely indeed. US treasury bonds happen to be the safest investment in the world; there is a reason people are happy to buy them up even now, when the interest rate is slightly negative (generally its slightly positive, but only slightly).
As such, the Social Security trust fund mainly buys and holds treasury bonds rather than a giant pile of cash. But that investment is perfectly safe (again, people invest in US Treasury bonds for exactly that reason; the US always pays its debts). It also allows that money to be put to use in the mean time, rather than be essentially taken out of the economy and hoarded in an account somewhere (aren't free-market fans always touting the power of investment? I thought that's why we have to keep capital gains taxes so low!). I know it's weird to think of an entity lending money to itself, but it is a fairly normal practice.
Yeah, we should lock this kid up with only criminals to socialize with, where he can (out of desire or necessity) join a neo-nazi prison gang who will reinforce all his fucked-up worldviews. And then a few years later we can throw him back into society and everything will be peachy-fucking-keen.
Not only is the philosophy you're touting far more damaging to society as a whole, your RAWR PUNISHMENT attitude isn't even supported by the victim in this case. Who is being served by throwing the kid in prison?
...well, now the fucker needs locked up, or at the very least institutionalized until they can figure out what the flying fuck is wrong with his brain.
Prison is going to do what for his mental health exactly? Then note that Leo Traynor's condition for not going to the police was that the parents put the kid in therapy.
Consumer Reports finds it totally usable; though of course you can they could be lying, too. As you can claim I am too, when I say I find it better than the pre-iOS 6 Google Maps version (so far I've only had one issue finding something, and the smoothness of the new vector-based maps when scrolling and zooming is ten times better). Accept everything that supports your opinion, and call everything else a lie - it's a simple way to always be right.
Apple's maps are definitely not perfect (particularly outside the US), but "total garbage" is total bullshit.
It's been about three days since Google chairman Eric Schmidt publicly acknowledged they have no maps app ready yet, and even before that the idea that they'd submitted an app was no more than rumor. You state your bullshit in a mighty factual tone...
Do they even have an API for that yet? What third-party apps integrate with Apple maps?
Yes, the API is part of iOS 6 and was announced back in June along with everything else. Most of the major (supporting multiple cities) transit apps already support it, as do many of the city-specific apps in most major cities (well, in the US anyway. I pay no attention to transit in other countries but I'd imagine it isn't much different for European cities at least) and the number of apps taking advantage of the integration is growing by the day.
So, how is Apple taking feedback? You can't just go to the map, click on a POI, and say "edit."
Actually, that is EXACTLY how you do it (and that method is in addition to the "report a problem" button on the options screen that others have already mentioned).
FWIW, in the restaurant industry the same general rule of thumb applies: take your wholesale food cost for a dish and multiply by three; that should be about the retail price of the dish. That pays for the chef, the dishwashers, wait staff, rent, and all sorts of other costs. Simply looking at the parts (food) costs without taking all the other business operations into consideration is idiotic.
Where is this supposed setting?
Giggle? You mean laugh-out-fucking-loud. You just linked to a year-and-a-half-old rumor, since proven false, about automatic app updates (we're talking about OS updates here).
Apple has auto-update enabled and often forced on their products and their target audience is not the technically adept.
False. No iOS products even have an "auto-update" ability. OS X has the option, but it is off by default.
I don't see where I indicated that. Hell, the majority of my votes for president have been third-party candidates.
So there's no evidence whatsoever, but it's still a rampant problem?
You need an ID to do almost anything these days. I personally think that's wrong, but it's a reality.
The only things I can remember hauling my ID out for over the past year are (1) paying with credit cards (because I never bother to sign them; if the card is signed, retailers are not allowed to ask for ID), (2) when I got a speeding ticket (not an issue for those who don't drive), and (3) for companies to hold on to when they want some kind of temporary collateral for a rental (i.e. renting paintball equipment). Perhaps your lifestyle requires frequent use of ID, but there are plenty of ways to live that do not. Note also that many places that ask you for ID do it simply because it is the easiest route; if you don't have a government-issued photo ID, most of them will be happy to switch to an alternate method (for example, utility companies).
I have not met anyone who does not have an ID of any sort. I have known and been dirt poor, homeless, and destitute in my life. I still had an ID.
Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. Studies show that in Pennsylvania alone there is anywhere between 3/4 to 1.5 million voters without ID; even the people who support the voter ID laws and claim those studies are overestimating the issue claim it's at least 100,000 people. The fact that you don't know these people doesn't mean shit; they are voters with a constitutional right to vote whether you like it or not.
It is the only way to efficiently prevent the rampant voter fraud that is happening in certain important counties in this county that largely decide the fate of the entire nation.
What rampant voter fraud? There is no evidence of any kind of "rampant" in-person voter fraud. None. There is a handful of cases in any particular year. When the state of Pennsylvania got sued over their new voter ID laws, they acknowledged in-person voter fraud has never been a problem. So why is the law necessary again?
Bullshit.
That is a good tag for your post.
If you can solve all the problems endemic to poverty in time to get everyone IDs by November, I would definitely like to subscribe to your newsletter.
(For a better answer, see the response above, posted by an AC.)