They asked Apple what percentage of apps were rejected, and they didn't answer the question:
Question 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
Apple. Applications and marketing text are submitted through a web interface. Submitted applications undergo a rigorous review process that tests for vulnerabilities such as software bugs, instability on the iPhone platform, and the use of unauthorized protocols.
Applications are also reviewed to try to prevent privacy issues, safeguard children from exposure to inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone.
and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted.
The agreement with Apple requires confidentiality with regards to the app approval process.
iPhone developers are bound by contract with Apple not to make information available to the public about communications with Apple over the app review.
A pole takes up the space of a person being there whether mounted vertically or horizontally.
If you look at the actual preprint linked from slashdot, the obstacle is not ever actually described or referred to as a pole.
And they haven't yet studied and written about varying the width of the obstacle.
The essential element is it blocks access from one side of the door, and leaves only a small gap on the side, restricting the number of ppl approaching the door to 3.
The most successful athletes have "abnormal" characteristics you will not find in the general population. It's part of what gives them the ability to compete.
The vast majority of the population will never be able to compete at the World Athletics Championship, no matter how much they train, it is in fact, a small portion of the population that are genetically fittest and able to be the best athletes.
Clearly it is discriminatory to exclude women from competing when they have genetic advantages, but to allow men to compete when men have genetic advantages.
Take Michael Phelps for example, and his size-14 feet, which bend 15 degrees farther than the vast majority of the population. Only a small number of individuals have this abnormality.
Perhaps all his gold medals should be revoked, since this abnormality means he doesn't qualify as a Man?
Take Lance Armstrong. Through (clearly) a genetic abnormality, his heart is 20% larger in size than the average athlete's, and grew even larger with training. And for some reason his body produces 30% less lactic acid than normal.
There is no bonafide process that can distinguish some genetic advantage over this athlete from ones many other athletes will have.
It also presents an undue burden on athletes. On Women. One can assess that many female athletes have some masculine characteristics, and one of their competitors will often notice and find it as something to complain about.
Whereas, male athletes don't seem to get this issue -- when was the last time a male athlete had to prove they were a man, as-opposed to some sort of super-human being?
If it was harder to enter the country illegally, more people might follow the legal path.
Technology and better barriers ought to be able to help there. 24 hour wide-angle CCTV surveillance of the borders should help. Remote operated FLIR guns could be utilized to get exact positions on intruders.
It would also help if certain presently illegal drugs were regulated and made legal to own and make/sell by certain US companies to adults in limited amounts for on-site-only consumption.
Wiping out the drug smuggling business would leave border patrols able to devote more resources to other issues.
Seeing as so many of their resources are actually spent on stopping smugglers.
The US satisfying eliminating smugglers' profit would eliminate a major incentive for illegal border crossings.
And the regulated US companies profits would be taxable, to boot, plus they could be forced to pay for their customers' eventual rehabilitation needs.
And for the first time in those "products'" history: provide clear warning labels, and a level of quality meeting regulatory standards: reduced deaths due to homemade "fillers" and other impurities, by regulating what fillers get used, and by limiting allowed purity.
(But they should only do this for substances that are being produced or likely to be producable in Mexico in quantity)
"help them rather than try to cut off the flow of immigrants."
This flies in the face of basic security principles. Any firewall admin should be able to tell you how ugly that sounds.. don't even try to cut off illegal traffic at your borders, without making sure they don't pose a threat???
Perhaps banks should stop worrying about alarm systems and trying to cut off the flow of bank robbers, instead, they should give out some free money, so they can help people not pose a risk to the bank.
I think of it as like an IT department trying to stop computer worms and secure the network, by getting all the computer users free windows antivirus software to install on personal laptops they plug in at work.
Rather than dealing with the real issue... things migrating into the corporate network, without IT so much as looking at them, much less closely assessing whether what they are bringing in poses a risk.
In fact, the flow of more immigrants increases the number of "poverty-stricken", because they arrive in that state. But many of these are illegal immigrants, and the flow is difficult to control.
Thus the cost of helping them out will continue to grow, as it's a continuously expanding group.
Moreover, helping them out encourages more of them to cross the border.
Much like a bank offering free money to would-be burglars as an incentive not to break in, will lead to more crime.
In a world of modern transportation, it is essentially impossible to screen every person who crosses into our country for diseases.
Sure, it's possible, but requires further inconveniencing people who wish to cross, and reducing the throughput (the rate at which people are legally allowed to cross borders). And might have a negative impact on tourists, if it took them several days waiting in line to get screened and admitted.
It is also more expensive (the most likely reason it's not actually done) and requires more paperwork to keep track of screening results and prove who's been properly screened to allow them to pass security.
With regards to US immigrants who are likely to have this disease "Modern" transportation means the automobile, which has been around since oh 1900, probably using a 15-year-old old clunker they loaned out at a junkyard for a few hundred $100.
There have not been any significant transportation enhancements in recent decades that justify lax border controls, or letting people in with proper health screening.
Instead it is the number and frequency of people wishing to cross borders.
They are also diseases that are common among immigrants, and that follow them in.
They may be old arguments, but that doesn't detract from their indisputable accuracy.
Particularly with these diseases which were previously unique to areas that immigrants come from. It is eminently clear where the disease is being sourced from.
The diseases are not ones that can be effectively treated by healthcare, there is no cure/effective treatment known to most of these diseases, the prognosis is not good, if you should catch one, your life will almost certainly be cut short, even if you have the best health care money can buy, the parasites cause permanent scars.
In most cases, the better good of society would be better achieved by quarantining people found to have these diseases.
Providing health care services to everyone who can't afford them does not fix these diseases.
Ultimately research would be required into a cure -- the free market and large profits that can be made, are ultimately, the incentives for this research to get conducted.
However, it indeed would be beneficial to the public for screening for these diseases to be mandatory and required for employment and travel within the US.
At least it would encourage people who unknowingly have the disease to get checked, and attempt whatever (unfortunately damaging) treatments are available, to help get a handle on the epidemic.
The genetics may be abnormal, and genes don't define gender, we just see them as related to gender.
If she can bear young, cannot impregnate women, and has not been physically altered, then she's female, as she claims; even if she has 5 Y chromosomes.
Your interpretation depends on who you are: If you're one of her competitors, then clearly all the other combinations indicate she's something other than a true 'Female'.
If you were one of her sponsors, then she's a female, and they're just gunning for some reason to disqualify her from competing, because they can't stand the fact that she's so good, or that she was born with an advantage.
The obstacle is not pictured, and the article does not discuss whether the obstacle is mounted vertically or horizontally.
It is therefore not safe to assume either.
Whether it's a "Bar" or "Pole" does not indicate the orientation.
Some bars are poles. Some bars are rods. Poles are bars.
Poles are typically round. Bars may be any shape: in fact, an entire counter or certain type of table of some length can be called a "bar"
The analogy between the physics of superfluid helium and general relativity is well known. The mathematics that describe these systems are essentially identical so measuring the properties of one automatically tells you how the other behaves.
A caveat is that if either general relativity or our science's understanding of the physics of superfluid helium have issues, or if there are other factors involved that don't have a direct equivalent comparison, then the analogy may have issues.
Our lack of understanding of how the big bang might of worked may cast doubt on how predictive or valid relativity was.
So if the result is extreme and unsurprising what gets doubted first?
Well, the complex metamaterial...
The extent of the difference could depend on how high the pole is mounted, e.g. how hard it is for people to step over, crawl underneath, or get around the pole.
RMS Titanic third class passengers had class-separation obstacles to contend with, locked barricades and gates to climb, to get to the boat deck, the survival rate among 3rd class males was 10%, and among 3rd class female passengers 25%.
Whereas the survival rate was 50% for male 1st class passengers and nearly 100% for female 1st class passengers.
Now I don't want to make any generalizations about obstacles, but be careful... unless thought out really well, the obstacles may do more harm than good in a real disaster.
A pole might stop people bumping into each other in a crowded room, but in a less-crowded room there's a risk, someone running or walking about accidentally crashes into the pole and injures themselves.
It is a cognitive bias (prejudicial thinking)
to believe something is true just because others believe it to be or because it's "common sense" or "makes sense"
Unfortunately, I think that to varying degrees, all humans might inherently suffer from this bias.
People have to assume some things to survive, often decisions must be made quickly, extensive research cannot always be done up front, and we don't have enough time on earth to learn the whole truth about everything, different people have different interests.
So by having a 'common sense' about certain things, we have an answer that may be slightly off, but is "good enough" to survive on.
And the people who study various subjects should hopefully correct any serious errors (eventually).
To the masses, anyone effective in repelling common sense (in one area or another) within a field where common-sense beliefs are especially strong could be deemed either genius [don't bother listening to them, you'll never understand], insane [cook, lock them up to stop them spreading these dangerous delusions], liar [can't trust them], or philosopher [don't bother, it's entirely an academic exercise].
Somehow, I think you have completely missed the point. The data used for these types of broad generalizations is not specific to an area, it is aggregated. Your strawman argument isn't very interesting -- do you actually believe that preferring Firefox means you are probably a criminal? The shark attack VS ice cream example is not a premise of the argument.
It's obviously not true for arbitrary geographic areas. And it's obviously not true for long term time frames - sharks attacks have gone down since 2000, I doubt world wide ice cream sales have.
The data does not suggest reported shark attacks have significantly gone down since 2000.
Reported shark attacks have been in an up trend since the 1980s.
And actually, Ice Cream sales have been going down a bit, since 2000, the product has been losing some some market share to other frozen desert items. And bad years.
I expect both reported shark attacks and ice cream sales have bad years, where they may randomly deviate from the trend.
Not all correlations are the strongest type possible.
Who said anything about shark attacks in Nashville, TN specifically? That's just like saying there isn't increased Firefox usage among Criminals who don't own or have access to a computer.
The correlations Ice Cream VS Shark attacks are not specific to TN. Just like the Firefox/Criminals observations, the observations about Ice cream sales and reported shark attacks both being lower in December, and both higher in July (whenever larger volumes of ice cream sales were observed, there were larger numbers of reported shark attacks), with strong correlation, pertains to observations during the specific study.
It's been said by so many people, that a "BS" claim is not compelling.
The BBC is more believable than an unsourced claim it's BS.
I'm reminded of an old observation: whenever ice cream sales rise, so do shark attacks.
So does eating ice cream cause sharks to attack you? No.
The observation that more Criminals prefer Firefox over IE, doesn't associate Firefox use with criminal behavior.
It most likely just means that there is a common occurence that causes technically savvy computer users to prefer Firefox.
People who build malware infrastructure are technically savvy, otherwise, they would not be able to understand and defeat technical security measures.
Non-technically savvy users often use IE because they don't understand the alternatives.
Also, they don't understand the weaknesses in IE's security defenses, the technical advantages of using Firefox (or Chrome) over IE, or the basic security principle that installing and using less-popular software (alternatives to the most popular option) means there are fewer people interested in devising a way to attack your software.
Eg Opera is not a very ripe target that hackers are highly interested in attacking, because it has so few users, it's a low value target.
Slashdot Mirror
They asked Apple what percentage of apps were rejected, and they didn't answer the question:
Question 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
Apple. Applications and marketing text are submitted through a web interface. Submitted applications undergo a rigorous review process that tests for vulnerabilities such as software bugs, instability on the iPhone platform, and the use of unauthorized protocols.
Applications are also reviewed to try to prevent privacy issues, safeguard children from exposure to inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone.
and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted.
The agreement with Apple requires confidentiality with regards to the app approval process.
iPhone developers are bound by contract with Apple not to make information available to the public about communications with Apple over the app review.
They don't have to reverse engineer it, they can just keep it in limbo forever if they want, it's safer that way.
And Google can never point and say "Hey, you rejected my app," because it will always be "under consideration" and possible eventual acceptance.
Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
No, they're holding it in limbo until the FCC stops asking questions.
A pole takes up the space of a person being there whether mounted vertically or horizontally.
If you look at the actual preprint linked from slashdot, the obstacle is not ever actually described or referred to as a pole.
And they haven't yet studied and written about varying the width of the obstacle.
The essential element is it blocks access from one side of the door, and leaves only a small gap on the side, restricting the number of ppl approaching the door to 3.
The most successful athletes have "abnormal" characteristics you will not find in the general population. It's part of what gives them the ability to compete.
The vast majority of the population will never be able to compete at the World Athletics Championship, no matter how much they train, it is in fact, a small portion of the population that are genetically fittest and able to be the best athletes.
Clearly it is discriminatory to exclude women from competing when they have genetic advantages, but to allow men to compete when men have genetic advantages.
Take Michael Phelps for example, and his size-14 feet, which bend 15 degrees farther than the vast majority of the population. Only a small number of individuals have this abnormality.
Perhaps all his gold medals should be revoked, since this abnormality means he doesn't qualify as a Man?
Take Lance Armstrong. Through (clearly) a genetic abnormality, his heart is 20% larger in size than the average athlete's, and grew even larger with training. And for some reason his body produces 30% less lactic acid than normal.
There is no bonafide process that can distinguish some genetic advantage over this athlete from ones many other athletes will have.
It also presents an undue burden on athletes. On Women. One can assess that many female athletes have some masculine characteristics, and one of their competitors will often notice and find it as something to complain about.
Whereas, male athletes don't seem to get this issue -- when was the last time a male athlete had to prove they were a man, as-opposed to some sort of super-human being?
If it was harder to enter the country illegally, more people might follow the legal path.
Technology and better barriers ought to be able to help there. 24 hour wide-angle CCTV surveillance of the borders should help. Remote operated FLIR guns could be utilized to get exact positions on intruders.
It would also help if certain presently illegal drugs were regulated and made legal to own and make/sell by certain US companies to adults in limited amounts for on-site-only consumption.
Wiping out the drug smuggling business would leave border patrols able to devote more resources to other issues.
Seeing as so many of their resources are actually spent on stopping smugglers.
The US satisfying eliminating smugglers' profit would eliminate a major incentive for illegal border crossings.
And the regulated US companies profits would be taxable, to boot, plus they could be forced to pay for their customers' eventual rehabilitation needs.
And for the first time in those "products'" history: provide clear warning labels, and a level of quality meeting regulatory standards: reduced deaths due to homemade "fillers" and other impurities, by regulating what fillers get used, and by limiting allowed purity.
(But they should only do this for substances that are being produced or likely to be producable in Mexico in quantity)
"help them rather than try to cut off the flow of immigrants."
This flies in the face of basic security principles. Any firewall admin should be able to tell you how ugly that sounds.. don't even try to cut off illegal traffic at your borders, without making sure they don't pose a threat???
Perhaps banks should stop worrying about alarm systems and trying to cut off the flow of bank robbers, instead, they should give out some free money, so they can help people not pose a risk to the bank.
I think of it as like an IT department trying to stop computer worms and secure the network, by getting all the computer users free windows antivirus software to install on personal laptops they plug in at work. Rather than dealing with the real issue... things migrating into the corporate network, without IT so much as looking at them, much less closely assessing whether what they are bringing in poses a risk.
In fact, the flow of more immigrants increases the number of "poverty-stricken", because they arrive in that state. But many of these are illegal immigrants, and the flow is difficult to control.
Thus the cost of helping them out will continue to grow, as it's a continuously expanding group. Moreover, helping them out encourages more of them to cross the border.
Much like a bank offering free money to would-be burglars as an incentive not to break in, will lead to more crime.
In a world of modern transportation, it is essentially impossible to screen every person who crosses into our country for diseases.
Sure, it's possible, but requires further inconveniencing people who wish to cross, and reducing the throughput (the rate at which people are legally allowed to cross borders). And might have a negative impact on tourists, if it took them several days waiting in line to get screened and admitted.
It is also more expensive (the most likely reason it's not actually done) and requires more paperwork to keep track of screening results and prove who's been properly screened to allow them to pass security.
With regards to US immigrants who are likely to have this disease "Modern" transportation means the automobile, which has been around since oh 1900, probably using a 15-year-old old clunker they loaned out at a junkyard for a few hundred $100.
There have not been any significant transportation enhancements in recent decades that justify lax border controls, or letting people in with proper health screening.
Instead it is the number and frequency of people wishing to cross borders.
They are also diseases that are common among immigrants, and that follow them in.
They may be old arguments, but that doesn't detract from their indisputable accuracy.
Particularly with these diseases which were previously unique to areas that immigrants come from. It is eminently clear where the disease is being sourced from.
The diseases are not ones that can be effectively treated by healthcare, there is no cure/effective treatment known to most of these diseases, the prognosis is not good, if you should catch one, your life will almost certainly be cut short, even if you have the best health care money can buy, the parasites cause permanent scars.
In most cases, the better good of society would be better achieved by quarantining people found to have these diseases.
Providing health care services to everyone who can't afford them does not fix these diseases. Ultimately research would be required into a cure -- the free market and large profits that can be made, are ultimately, the incentives for this research to get conducted.
However, it indeed would be beneficial to the public for screening for these diseases to be mandatory and required for employment and travel within the US.
At least it would encourage people who unknowingly have the disease to get checked, and attempt whatever (unfortunately damaging) treatments are available, to help get a handle on the epidemic.
The genetics may be abnormal, and genes don't define gender, we just see them as related to gender.
If she can bear young, cannot impregnate women, and has not been physically altered, then she's female, as she claims; even if she has 5 Y chromosomes.
Apparently they did inspect at some point, but they are not convinced by that.
Perhaps they think her organs are photoshopped?
Your interpretation depends on who you are: If you're one of her competitors, then clearly all the other combinations indicate she's something other than a true 'Female'.
If you were one of her sponsors, then she's a female, and they're just gunning for some reason to disqualify her from competing, because they can't stand the fact that she's so good, or that she was born with an advantage.
The obstacle is not pictured, and the article does not discuss whether the obstacle is mounted vertically or horizontally. It is therefore not safe to assume either.
Whether it's a "Bar" or "Pole" does not indicate the orientation.
Some bars are poles. Some bars are rods. Poles are bars.
Poles are typically round. Bars may be any shape: in fact, an entire counter or certain type of table of some length can be called a "bar"
The analogy between the physics of superfluid helium and general relativity is well known. The mathematics that describe these systems are essentially identical so measuring the properties of one automatically tells you how the other behaves.
A caveat is that if either general relativity or our science's understanding of the physics of superfluid helium have issues, or if there are other factors involved that don't have a direct equivalent comparison, then the analogy may have issues.
Our lack of understanding of how the big bang might of worked may cast doubt on how predictive or valid relativity was.
So if the result is extreme and unsurprising what gets doubted first? Well, the complex metamaterial...
Yes, there are some differences.
The extent of the difference could depend on how high the pole is mounted, e.g. how hard it is for people to step over, crawl underneath, or get around the pole.
RMS Titanic third class passengers had class-separation obstacles to contend with, locked barricades and gates to climb, to get to the boat deck, the survival rate among 3rd class males was 10%, and among 3rd class female passengers 25%.
Whereas the survival rate was 50% for male 1st class passengers and nearly 100% for female 1st class passengers.
Now I don't want to make any generalizations about obstacles, but be careful... unless thought out really well, the obstacles may do more harm than good in a real disaster.
A pole might stop people bumping into each other in a crowded room, but in a less-crowded room there's a risk, someone running or walking about accidentally crashes into the pole and injures themselves.
It is a cognitive bias (prejudicial thinking) to believe something is true just because others believe it to be or because it's "common sense" or "makes sense"
Unfortunately, I think that to varying degrees, all humans might inherently suffer from this bias. People have to assume some things to survive, often decisions must be made quickly, extensive research cannot always be done up front, and we don't have enough time on earth to learn the whole truth about everything, different people have different interests.
So by having a 'common sense' about certain things, we have an answer that may be slightly off, but is "good enough" to survive on. And the people who study various subjects should hopefully correct any serious errors (eventually).
To the masses, anyone effective in repelling common sense (in one area or another) within a field where common-sense beliefs are especially strong could be deemed either genius [don't bother listening to them, you'll never understand], insane [cook, lock them up to stop them spreading these dangerous delusions], liar [can't trust them], or philosopher [don't bother, it's entirely an academic exercise].
This is actually a lot more useful than much of the trivial research universities sometimes do.
Their findings can save lives...
Somehow, I think you have completely missed the point. The data used for these types of broad generalizations is not specific to an area, it is aggregated. Your strawman argument isn't very interesting -- do you actually believe that preferring Firefox means you are probably a criminal? The shark attack VS ice cream example is not a premise of the argument.
It's obviously not true for arbitrary geographic areas. And it's obviously not true for long term time frames - sharks attacks have gone down since 2000, I doubt world wide ice cream sales have.
The data does not suggest reported shark attacks have significantly gone down since 2000.
Reported shark attacks have been in an up trend since the 1980s.
And actually, Ice Cream sales have been going down a bit, since 2000, the product has been losing some some market share to other frozen desert items. And bad years.
I expect both reported shark attacks and ice cream sales have bad years, where they may randomly deviate from the trend. Not all correlations are the strongest type possible.
Who said anything about shark attacks in Nashville, TN specifically? That's just like saying there isn't increased Firefox usage among Criminals who don't own or have access to a computer.
The correlations Ice Cream VS Shark attacks are not specific to TN. Just like the Firefox/Criminals observations, the observations about Ice cream sales and reported shark attacks both being lower in December, and both higher in July (whenever larger volumes of ice cream sales were observed, there were larger numbers of reported shark attacks), with strong correlation, pertains to observations during the specific study.
It's been said by so many people, that a "BS" claim is not compelling.
The BBC is more believable than an unsourced claim it's BS.
I'm reminded of an old observation: whenever ice cream sales rise, so do shark attacks. So does eating ice cream cause sharks to attack you? No.
The observation that more Criminals prefer Firefox over IE, doesn't associate Firefox use with criminal behavior.
It most likely just means that there is a common occurence that causes technically savvy computer users to prefer Firefox.
People who build malware infrastructure are technically savvy, otherwise, they would not be able to understand and defeat technical security measures.
Non-technically savvy users often use IE because they don't understand the alternatives.
Also, they don't understand the weaknesses in IE's security defenses, the technical advantages of using Firefox (or Chrome) over IE, or the basic security principle that installing and using less-popular software (alternatives to the most popular option) means there are fewer people interested in devising a way to attack your software.
Eg Opera is not a very ripe target that hackers are highly interested in attacking, because it has so few users, it's a low value target.
I don't think it's gonna work that well, the average consumer will borrow the money to go to this treatment center.
Or try to claim it against their insurance, since they had a "medical necessity" to cure their internat addiction affliction...
The beatings are free, but the legal paperwork you have to sign to get them costs money.
I don't think it fails, because an infinite string of digits matches [[:digit:]]+
The $ just means there aren't any more strings of arbitrary characters following that infinite string of digits