Actually that seems supportive, they are demonstrating the importance of numbers that are multiples of 12. A foot, being inherently 12 inches, would always qualify. With metric they have to carefully choose the number of cm, easy enough but an extra step.
Another way to look at it is what is the advantage of the metric system? Multiples of 10, that simplifies things in so many areas. Carpentry may simply be the exception, where a multiple of 12 is more convenient than a multiple of 10. So a foot may be more natural in carpentry while cm is more natural in most other areas.
The US is a big country so it takes a while to change things.
We started teaching the metric system to kids in elementary school in the 1970s.
All the signs would need changing...
I recall a lot of the signs were changed, displaying both imperial and metric for a while, then a decade or so later they went back to just imperial. Also if we had only changed signs on the normal replacement cycle we would probably have been done by now.
, all the measurements in laws...
Trivial effort is required to convert, far less than what is expended interpreting the law. Also note that in many contexts, units on packaging, imperial and metric are still side by side.
, all the schools,...
Done in the 1970s.
and much of the culture...
If we had stayed on course it would be over by now.
The sig doesn't mention it but yes the calculator does metric.:-)
There's a reason lasers are used to perform 3D scans. The iPhone screen is not a point source of light. Good luck making any parts which are more than crude attempts at copies.
Mount the iPhone/iPod into a sled, like they do with credit card readers, that provides the laser and a fixed geometry.
... why would I want to help a proprietary map that will then be owned by Google, instead of helping the map [OpenStreetMap project] that belongs to all of us?...
Because Google is the 800 lb gorilla with money and brand name recognition. People know and trust it, its motto is do no evil, why are you worried?
There is both a good and a bad side to this. Ignoring the wikipedia type abuse that will occur it will probably be a net good, however say goodbye to favorite places that only locals or a few know about. Someone will put it on Google.
Ever discover a good side road that works to get around traffic? A friend and I who carpooled found one. One day a radio station started a segment where people could call in with traffic tips. Someone glowing described this wonderful detour. The next day it was as stalled and backed up as the highway. Years later I went that way again, still as screwed up. I suspect this sort of thing to happen with various other kind of favorite spots.
On the "plus side" parents will probably easily find out where the kids hang out, party, etc.
Another poster above complains about the saving of GM for the low skill jobs... but that is what the majority of people do. The majority is NOT working on the next generation chip technology or moon rocket (oh wait, that is China isn't it, my bad).
Actually the US has a space industry, for now, but look what the taxation and regulation of California are leading to:
"A big prerequisite for a risky new industry is product liability protection for manufacturers and an enforceable informed consent regime for operators – something New Mexico has addressed. Getting car insurance in California can be hard enough; imagine trying to cover a rocket ship. A space tourist does not demand the same level of protection as a kid boarding Space Mountain at Disneyland. Real spaceflight remains a risky endeavor and anyone who straps themselves into the first generation of vehicles is going to know to fully understand the dangers. All our serious competitors – New Mexico, Virginia and Florida – already have such protection and Texas just passed a similar bill.
In regards to taxes, New Mexico’s top rate of 7.6 percent is a bit lower than California’s flat 8.84 percent. The Land of Enchantment uses a progressive structure far more conducive to nurturing small business and startups and it has created several tax incentives for the space industry. These include tax credits for the wages paid on newly created high-tech jobs, venture capital investments and a sales tax exemption for operations. This is a low-risk subsidy model for an all-or-nothing industry. If the private space businesses take off, thousands of jobs will be created and the state will see a wealth of taxable income. If, however, this industry turns out to be a profitless pipe dream, there is very little to be lost.
If California chooses not to act, the business and tax revenues will surely head elsewhere in any case." http://m.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/14/competitors-are-wooing-california-space-industry/
You are mistaken. For example as an evangelist this guy may know who Microsoft's weakest clients are, those most receptive to a pitch from Salesforce. He may even know their specific concerns and use such insider knowledge in his pitch
I am not a lawyer but I hope the Minority report concept has no root in the legal system of this country. To make a decision based on the concept someone *may* in the future decide to use privledged information in violation their contract as a pretext to constrain their opportunities is fundementally unfair and illogical in my view. I hope the judges decision had nothing to do with hypothetical possibilities.
That's a bit of an overstatement. My understanding is that in general the people who get this sort of 12 month restriction have access to detailed and confidential business plans, things regular employees would not have access to. The nature of the new job also tends to be such that it would be very difficult to make decisions independent of the confidential information of the former employer, its more than the possibility of doing so that you suggest. I don't recall the specific companies involved but I recall something in the recent past where a judge prohibiting someone working in a particular department of the new employer for 12 months.
Also in California, judges are becoming so annoyed that companies are still including non-compete clauses in employment contracts that some are now voiding the entire employment contract rather than just the offending non-compete clause.
Really? Voiding the entire contract could result in exposing all of a company's trade secrets, since voided contracts really cannot be considered a reasonable step to protect the secrecy. That is one hell of a move by those courts...
YMMV but I've usually been presented with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) separately from employment and consulting contracts. Voiding the employment contract would not affect the separate non-discolure agreement. This is not exactly a new issue for attorneys and they seem to like keeping unrelated things separate for just this sort of reason. Also some trade secret protection may come from state statutes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act, and not be entirely contract based.
I also suspect the judges are carefully picking the companies/contracts they are making an example of and trying to avoid such complications.
Incorrect. Taking up a position with a rival gives a motivation, perhaps a strong one, to reveal the information and try to get away with it. Prohibiting such employment in the first place is much easier than trying to prove that such information was revealed after the fact.
In California and many other states (nearly all ?) the courts have considered that argument and found it to be less persuasive than the opposing argument that a person should not be hindered in their ability to take their general knowledge and skills from one employer to another, that they should not be restrained from practicing their profession. Specifically in California the courts ruled that non-compete agreements are against the public interest and unenforceable. Exceptions usually involve owners who are selling a company.
Also in California, judges are becoming so annoyed that companies are still including non-compete clauses in employment contracts that some are now voiding the entire employment contract rather than just the offending non-compete clause.
I highly doubt this guy learned any Secrets Of Evangelism Known Only To Microsoft (TM) and is stealing them for Salesforce. The judge is an idiot.
You are mistaken. For example as an evangelist this guy may know who Microsoft's weakest clients are, those most receptive to a pitch from Salesforce. He may even know their specific concerns and use such insider knowledge in his pitch.
... for high-level people with insider information, it may be a special case that I could be persuaded to accept...
Confidential information (trade secrets, etc) can never be revealed by a former employee. The presence or absence of a non-compete agreement is irrelevant to such information.
For the most part non-compete agreements are a mind game and are not enforceable. Exceptions usually involve owners who sell a company. For high level execs the legal justification usually has nothing to do with non-competes but rather that in their new role they will inevitably use confidential information of the former employer. Note "use" not "reveal", as in quietly make decisions without fully explaining their reasons.
Google could make a music player that streams targeted ads along with music. The incentive for the user would be that it would be cheaper or even free with ads attached, but more expensive without it.
Google would have to abandon open source (ex Android). Folks would update the player to skip the ads.;-)
Remember, Google is a for profit company with shareholders. They can't purchase something expensive, hemorrhage cash on it, and expect the shareholders to accept that.
... like Youtube?
Youtube fits Google's business, which is advertising. More eyeballs to view ads that are along side the content. If they got into the business of selling music where would the ads go? The music store would not be enough, that is too infrequent a stop. They can't put it along side the content like all their other "side" ventures.
You are mistaken that in app purchases would cost more than full priced apps. In various configurations the app would have been priced equivalently to the sum of the relevant in app purchases.
A single full priced app with everything doesn't make much sense. Few would need the combined functionality of scientific, hex and business calculators. A more realistic scenario would be to have three different full priced apps, one for each of these diverse topics: scientific=sci+stat, hex=sci+hex, business=sci+stat+bus. Note that this is precisely what you see in the actual handheld calculator market. In this scenario a user who was interested in more than one topic would actually pay more since there would be redundant scientific and statistics functionality. So in app purchases do save the user in this type of product.
You are right that it takes some effort to make each in app purchase, but these are trivial one time events. Also this seems offset by the convenience of having the diverse topics in a single app rather than three separate apps.
Your app isn't targeted at children. Your app doesn't allow them to accidentally spend $100 on an in-app purchase that's right next to stuff that is bought with in-game currency. The developers of this game are slimy, trying to cash in on ignorance while they can.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that some developers as being slimy. However I am very curious to hear how people think options within a game should be handled. I hope to avoid becoming a slimy developer in the future.:-)
For instance lets say a game is freemium. Enhanced ammunition is optional. Additional levels are optional. Levels would be a non-cunsumable in app purchase, a one time thing, like the app itself they could always be re-enabled at no additional cost should the app be removed/reinstalled, the device upgraded, etc. However the enhanced ammunition could be non-consumable or consumable, in the later case the in app purchase delivers some number of units to be consumed during play. My inclination would be to *not* allow *multiple* consumable purchases, a second consumable purchase would not be offered until all the units from the first consumable purchase had been used up. I think this would be reasonable behavior given that Apple has plugged their hole that allowed the app purchase/download authorization to also authorize in app purchases for a few minutes. I've love to hear the opinions of others.
The space-based-solar-power link said 144% not 44%, if it were 44% I would not have bothered responding. However your insolation link leaves me confused with 1,366 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere and 1,000 W/m^2 at sea level. Typo somewhere or am I missing something subtle in "solar energy" vs "radiant power", visible spectrum maybe?
... try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.
I have an app that is available in both paid and free versions, both offer in app purchases to expand functionality.
Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model...
My app, Perpenso Calc is five calculators in one: scientific, statistics, business, hex and bill/tip. I could have one high priced paid app that offers all five calculators. Or I could have five separate low priced calculators. However I think the freemium model works well for my case. The scientific calculator is part of the free app but advanced features like RPN and the statistics, business, hex and bill/tip calculators are all available via in app purchase. In app purchase avoids paying for functionality you don't need in the single app scenario and it avoids paying for redundant functionality in the multiple apps scenario. If you have a better idea I'd love to hear it.
Admittedly my app is not a game but I don't see what is inherently slimy about making new levels and optional item available via in app purchase. It seems to be an improvement over the old model of having to have a free lite version for trial purposes and a paid version with a complete set of items and levels. In app purchase also handles the expansion pack issue.
Now I admit that Apple had a hole in their implementation of in app purchase in that the authorization for the purchase/download of the app itself would also authorize in app purchases for some relatively small number of minutes but they have fixed that. Plus in Apple's defense in app purchases could have been disabled on a particular device.
What is stupid about in app purchases? Admittedly I have a technical product rather than a game, Perpenso Calc, but if works along the freemium model. The free version offers scientific functionality including fractions, complex numbers and metric conversions however advanced features like RPN come in from in app purchases. Also this app is really five calculators in one. Rather than offer separate calculators for scientific, statistics, business, hex and bill tip I allow the latter four to be added via in app purchase. Another alternative would be putting all five calculators in one paid app at a high price point. Personally I prefer the in app purchase approach. It allows customers to customize the app and only pay for the functionality they actually want?
If you have an alternative to in app purchase I'd be happy to hear about it.
FWIW:
"Solar energy reaching Earth's orbit is 144% of the maximum found on the surface of Earth, and includes wavelengths that don't even reach the surface due to the atmosphere." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
Consider business cards, letter head, flyers, postcards, etc.
Oh please, for those purposes CMYK is overkill. RGB is good enough for that. Hellfire, There are people doing those things in Print Shop!
I am not talking about the cards and flyers printed at home. I'm talking about the stuff you hand off to your local/online printshop for a professional look.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that seems supportive, they are demonstrating the importance of numbers that are multiples of 12. A foot, being inherently 12 inches, would always qualify. With metric they have to carefully choose the number of cm, easy enough but an extra step.
Another way to look at it is what is the advantage of the metric system? Multiples of 10, that simplifies things in so many areas. Carpentry may simply be the exception, where a multiple of 12 is more convenient than a multiple of 10. So a foot may be more natural in carpentry while cm is more natural in most other areas.
How so? Seriously, I'm interested why Imperial is better for carpentry only.
A foot, 12 inches, is easily divided by 2, 3, 4 and 6. The first three seem quite practical. At least that's what I recall hearing once before.
What is even worse, is scientific shows like Mythbusters use BOTH systems...
They are just trying to help the kids learn to convert. :-)
The US is a big country so it takes a while to change things.
We started teaching the metric system to kids in elementary school in the 1970s.
All the signs would need changing ...
I recall a lot of the signs were changed, displaying both imperial and metric for a while, then a decade or so later they went back to just imperial. Also if we had only changed signs on the normal replacement cycle we would probably have been done by now.
, all the measurements in laws ...
Trivial effort is required to convert, far less than what is expended interpreting the law. Also note that in many contexts, units on packaging, imperial and metric are still side by side.
, all the schools, ...
Done in the 1970s.
and much of the culture ...
If we had stayed on course it would be over by now.
:-)
The sig doesn't mention it but yes the calculator does metric.
Cutting and drilling through hardened steel.
Doubtful for a laser designed for use *inside* an engine. :-)
There's a reason lasers are used to perform 3D scans. The iPhone screen is not a point source of light. Good luck making any parts which are more than crude attempts at copies.
Mount the iPhone/iPod into a sled, like they do with credit card readers, that provides the laser and a fixed geometry.
... why would I want to help a proprietary map that will then be owned by Google, instead of helping the map [OpenStreetMap project] that belongs to all of us? ...
Because Google is the 800 lb gorilla with money and brand name recognition. People know and trust it, its motto is do no evil, why are you worried?
There is both a good and a bad side to this. Ignoring the wikipedia type abuse that will occur it will probably be a net good, however say goodbye to favorite places that only locals or a few know about. Someone will put it on Google.
Ever discover a good side road that works to get around traffic? A friend and I who carpooled found one. One day a radio station started a segment where people could call in with traffic tips. Someone glowing described this wonderful detour. The next day it was as stalled and backed up as the highway. Years later I went that way again, still as screwed up. I suspect this sort of thing to happen with various other kind of favorite spots.
On the "plus side" parents will probably easily find out where the kids hang out, party, etc.
Another poster above complains about the saving of GM for the low skill jobs... but that is what the majority of people do. The majority is NOT working on the next generation chip technology or moon rocket (oh wait, that is China isn't it, my bad).
Actually the US has a space industry, for now, but look what the taxation and regulation of California are leading to:
"A big prerequisite for a risky new industry is product liability protection for manufacturers and an enforceable informed consent regime for operators – something New Mexico has addressed. Getting car insurance in California can be hard enough; imagine trying to cover a rocket ship. A space tourist does not demand the same level of protection as a kid boarding Space Mountain at Disneyland. Real spaceflight remains a risky endeavor and anyone who straps themselves into the first generation of vehicles is going to know to fully understand the dangers. All our serious competitors – New Mexico, Virginia and Florida – already have such protection and Texas just passed a similar bill.
In regards to taxes, New Mexico’s top rate of 7.6 percent is a bit lower than California’s flat 8.84 percent. The Land of Enchantment uses a progressive structure far more conducive to nurturing small business and startups and it has created several tax incentives for the space industry. These include tax credits for the wages paid on newly created high-tech jobs, venture capital investments and a sales tax exemption for operations. This is a low-risk subsidy model for an all-or-nothing industry. If the private space businesses take off, thousands of jobs will be created and the state will see a wealth of taxable income. If, however, this industry turns out to be a profitless pipe dream, there is very little to be lost.
If California chooses not to act, the business and tax revenues will surely head elsewhere in any case."
http://m.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/14/competitors-are-wooing-california-space-industry/
You are mistaken. For example as an evangelist this guy may know who Microsoft's weakest clients are, those most receptive to a pitch from Salesforce. He may even know their specific concerns and use such insider knowledge in his pitch
I am not a lawyer but I hope the Minority report concept has no root in the legal system of this country. To make a decision based on the concept someone *may* in the future decide to use privledged information in violation their contract as a pretext to constrain their opportunities is fundementally unfair and illogical in my view. I hope the judges decision had nothing to do with hypothetical possibilities.
That's a bit of an overstatement. My understanding is that in general the people who get this sort of 12 month restriction have access to detailed and confidential business plans, things regular employees would not have access to. The nature of the new job also tends to be such that it would be very difficult to make decisions independent of the confidential information of the former employer, its more than the possibility of doing so that you suggest. I don't recall the specific companies involved but I recall something in the recent past where a judge prohibiting someone working in a particular department of the new employer for 12 months.
But this only should apply if your new employer directly competes with the former.
Or perhaps if your former employer has confidential plans to compete in the near future.
Also in California, judges are becoming so annoyed that companies are still including non-compete clauses in employment contracts that some are now voiding the entire employment contract rather than just the offending non-compete clause.
Really? Voiding the entire contract could result in exposing all of a company's trade secrets, since voided contracts really cannot be considered a reasonable step to protect the secrecy. That is one hell of a move by those courts...
YMMV but I've usually been presented with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) separately from employment and consulting contracts. Voiding the employment contract would not affect the separate non-discolure agreement. This is not exactly a new issue for attorneys and they seem to like keeping unrelated things separate for just this sort of reason. Also some trade secret protection may come from state statutes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act, and not be entirely contract based.
I also suspect the judges are carefully picking the companies/contracts they are making an example of and trying to avoid such complications.
Incorrect. Taking up a position with a rival gives a motivation, perhaps a strong one, to reveal the information and try to get away with it. Prohibiting such employment in the first place is much easier than trying to prove that such information was revealed after the fact.
In California and many other states (nearly all ?) the courts have considered that argument and found it to be less persuasive than the opposing argument that a person should not be hindered in their ability to take their general knowledge and skills from one employer to another, that they should not be restrained from practicing their profession. Specifically in California the courts ruled that non-compete agreements are against the public interest and unenforceable. Exceptions usually involve owners who are selling a company.
Also in California, judges are becoming so annoyed that companies are still including non-compete clauses in employment contracts that some are now voiding the entire employment contract rather than just the offending non-compete clause.
I highly doubt this guy learned any Secrets Of Evangelism Known Only To Microsoft (TM) and is stealing them for Salesforce. The judge is an idiot.
You are mistaken. For example as an evangelist this guy may know who Microsoft's weakest clients are, those most receptive to a pitch from Salesforce. He may even know their specific concerns and use such insider knowledge in his pitch.
... for high-level people with insider information, it may be a special case that I could be persuaded to accept ...
Confidential information (trade secrets, etc) can never be revealed by a former employee. The presence or absence of a non-compete agreement is irrelevant to such information.
For the most part non-compete agreements are a mind game and are not enforceable. Exceptions usually involve owners who sell a company. For high level execs the legal justification usually has nothing to do with non-competes but rather that in their new role they will inevitably use confidential information of the former employer. Note "use" not "reveal", as in quietly make decisions without fully explaining their reasons.
Google could make a music player that streams targeted ads along with music. The incentive for the user would be that it would be cheaper or even free with ads attached, but more expensive without it.
Google would have to abandon open source (ex Android). Folks would update the player to skip the ads. ;-)
Remember, Google is a for profit company with shareholders. They can't purchase something expensive, hemorrhage cash on it, and expect the shareholders to accept that.
... like Youtube?
Youtube fits Google's business, which is advertising. More eyeballs to view ads that are along side the content. If they got into the business of selling music where would the ads go? The music store would not be enough, that is too infrequent a stop. They can't put it along side the content like all their other "side" ventures.
You are mistaken that in app purchases would cost more than full priced apps. In various configurations the app would have been priced equivalently to the sum of the relevant in app purchases.
A single full priced app with everything doesn't make much sense. Few would need the combined functionality of scientific, hex and business calculators. A more realistic scenario would be to have three different full priced apps, one for each of these diverse topics: scientific=sci+stat, hex=sci+hex, business=sci+stat+bus. Note that this is precisely what you see in the actual handheld calculator market. In this scenario a user who was interested in more than one topic would actually pay more since there would be redundant scientific and statistics functionality. So in app purchases do save the user in this type of product.
You are right that it takes some effort to make each in app purchase, but these are trivial one time events. Also this seems offset by the convenience of having the diverse topics in a single app rather than three separate apps.
Fair enough, I was misreading it as 144% more, X + 1.44X.
Your app isn't targeted at children. Your app doesn't allow them to accidentally spend $100 on an in-app purchase that's right next to stuff that is bought with in-game currency. The developers of this game are slimy, trying to cash in on ignorance while they can.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that some developers as being slimy. However I am very curious to hear how people think options within a game should be handled. I hope to avoid becoming a slimy developer in the future. :-)
For instance lets say a game is freemium. Enhanced ammunition is optional. Additional levels are optional. Levels would be a non-cunsumable in app purchase, a one time thing, like the app itself they could always be re-enabled at no additional cost should the app be removed/reinstalled, the device upgraded, etc. However the enhanced ammunition could be non-consumable or consumable, in the later case the in app purchase delivers some number of units to be consumed during play. My inclination would be to *not* allow *multiple* consumable purchases, a second consumable purchase would not be offered until all the units from the first consumable purchase had been used up. I think this would be reasonable behavior given that Apple has plugged their hole that allowed the app purchase/download authorization to also authorize in app purchases for a few minutes. I've love to hear the opinions of others.
The space-based-solar-power link said 144% not 44%, if it were 44% I would not have bothered responding. However your insolation link leaves me confused with 1,366 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere and 1,000 W/m^2 at sea level. Typo somewhere or am I missing something subtle in "solar energy" vs "radiant power", visible spectrum maybe?
... try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.
I have an app that is available in both paid and free versions, both offer in app purchases to expand functionality.
Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model ...
My app, Perpenso Calc is five calculators in one: scientific, statistics, business, hex and bill/tip. I could have one high priced paid app that offers all five calculators. Or I could have five separate low priced calculators. However I think the freemium model works well for my case. The scientific calculator is part of the free app but advanced features like RPN and the statistics, business, hex and bill/tip calculators are all available via in app purchase. In app purchase avoids paying for functionality you don't need in the single app scenario and it avoids paying for redundant functionality in the multiple apps scenario. If you have a better idea I'd love to hear it.
Admittedly my app is not a game but I don't see what is inherently slimy about making new levels and optional item available via in app purchase. It seems to be an improvement over the old model of having to have a free lite version for trial purposes and a paid version with a complete set of items and levels. In app purchase also handles the expansion pack issue.
Now I admit that Apple had a hole in their implementation of in app purchase in that the authorization for the purchase/download of the app itself would also authorize in app purchases for some relatively small number of minutes but they have fixed that. Plus in Apple's defense in app purchases could have been disabled on a particular device.
Although I do find this business model stupid ...
What is stupid about in app purchases? Admittedly I have a technical product rather than a game, Perpenso Calc, but if works along the freemium model. The free version offers scientific functionality including fractions, complex numbers and metric conversions however advanced features like RPN come in from in app purchases. Also this app is really five calculators in one. Rather than offer separate calculators for scientific, statistics, business, hex and bill tip I allow the latter four to be added via in app purchase. Another alternative would be putting all five calculators in one paid app at a high price point. Personally I prefer the in app purchase approach. It allows customers to customize the app and only pay for the functionality they actually want?
If you have an alternative to in app purchase I'd be happy to hear about it.
20-30% more than noon day son at the equator?
FWIW:
"Solar energy reaching Earth's orbit is 144% of the maximum found on the surface of Earth, and includes wavelengths that don't even reach the surface due to the atmosphere."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
Consider business cards, letter head, flyers, postcards, etc.
Oh please, for those purposes CMYK is overkill. RGB is good enough for that. Hellfire, There are people doing those things in Print Shop!
I am not talking about the cards and flyers printed at home. I'm talking about the stuff you hand off to your local/online printshop for a professional look.