Yes, it is ridiculous for Apple to charge anything. They are taking care of the distribution system, payment collection system, and maintaining the "store" (that little "walled garden" many on/. bemoan but users seem to be just fine with), and all the little headaches that come from maintaining all these things. That should be something they provide you for free since you are gracing them with your app to sell. Do you think you could provide all these things for yourself for $99?
If you want visibility, market your product. It isn't Apple's job to give every new app top billing in the store.
Of course, for the unsuccessful developers the story is clear. They had a technically superior product that the market would have rushed to if somehow Apple hadn't screwed them.
The idea here isn't to be an Apple fan. The goal is to ask for a bit of honesty. Quit focusing on all that Apple doesn't give you. Your $99 is not without return.
Yeah, but don't let facts get in the way of installing x-ray machines at airports.
Just wait. The idiots at DHS will realize what you said one day, and then we'll have scanners at all the venues you listed. For your safety, of course.
I know your post meant to highlight how bad the TSA is, but it really pointed out the UK is much, much worse because you live in fear of women that might want to protect themselves from physically stronger assailants.
Scanning tools at the hospital have to pass high hurdles to be certified for use. The scanners at the airport were installed such that they circumvented such certification. Do you think it would have been necessary to circumvent the certification if they would have passed?
You do understand that since the TSA is searching for the rogue bottle of water or shampoo that is 3.1 oz instead of 3 oz they are letting guns, knives, and who knows what else through the checkpoints. You do understand there are multiple paths to get nefarious things on an airplane. You do realize that the passengers on the plane no longer believe that compliance is the proper response and will deal with threats onboard such as the shoe and underwear bombers.
The TSA ensuring your "safety" is an illusion. If you believe it, then good for you - Santa still comes down the chimney and eats the cookies you left out. The TSA is security theater -- it looks like they are busy doing useful things, but in the end it is all an act.
And used cocaine, and visited strip clubs. So they believed it as all ok because of their jihad? Is that how we are continuing to believe they were radical Muslims?
No. We continue to believe they were radical Muslims because they killed themselves, a plane load of people, and thousands on the ground in the name of their faith.
the fact that anonymous is actually taken by the drug cartels as a serious threat that requires this much action basically tells that anonymous is on the same league with them in regard to impact now.
They took "Anonymous" about as seriously as they take any snitch. Do you actually think that Mexican drug cartels consider Anonymous a serious threat? Are you fucking retarded?
Yeah, they go through the trouble of killing someone and displaying their mutilated bodies as foreplay. Are you fucking retarded?
They kill snitches and display their mutilated bodies because snitches are dangerous to the organization. They harm the families of snitches because snitches are dangerous to the organization. The more public the execution and the more those around the victim are harmed, the more dangerous they were to the organization.
For flash memory (if I understand it correctly, open to doubt) a bit is basically a capacitor with an RC time constant of years and a double-gate MOSFET hooked up that permit the passive reading of capacitor state. The default, energetically ground state of a bit is 1. Writing a 0 to a bit "flashes" electrons across a quantum boundary to invert the capacitor state, and the inverted state is very slightly higher energy (and increases the interbit energy as well in a manner similar to the HDD platter).
His understanding of NAND flash is a bit better than yours. NAND program and erases must be verified. It is possible to have a state where you can't read it as a 0 or read it as a 1, which is indeed undefined.
It is cleaver though, how you claim there is no difference between an erased block and a block that is storing all ones, since, as you pointed out, these are the same states. Back to what you meant to say, and what most folks would have read...
There is indeed a difference in energy state between a programmed and erased bit. That is exactly how you can tell the difference between the two. In one state you have electrons driven to the floating gate. In the other state you have electrons driven off of the floating gate.
At the end of the day, the only interesting thing about the professor's work is that his paper answering this unimportant question that no one asked can actually get published.
And to the grandparent post, non-volatile memory does not require power to "hold the electrons in position".
Unfortunately saying the United Nations has become a useless body is an incorrect statement. The United Nations has become a harmful body that is being used as a puppet for ridiculous ideas. The entire thing should be disbanded.
Who defined your fair share? You? Why do you get to define my fair share? I defined my view of your fair share and you didn't like it. Do you understand how percentages work and that "the rich" already pay far more than everyone else?
Define unfortunate. You recognize that "the poor" in America have it pretty well. There are certainly people in need, but by the definitions used, the poor have it very well compared to the Ethopians you compare to. By the way, you do realize Ethopia is not a state, correct?
You do also realize that taxing "the rich" more to continue funding expanded entitlement programs for the "poor" is not the same thing as funding public education, right?
I think it would be more accurate to say that government solicit proposals from public and private entities for solutions to a given problem, and the proposal that provides the most value to the tax payer wins. I think most republicans would agree with that system since it introduces privatization of research. The government still needs to be involved so that the research that is funded by taxpayers should benefit all tax payers not just the company that discovers the solution.
Ideally, it works the way you "think". In reality, it does not. Quite a bit of the research dollars are spent on fairly wide open grants, chosen at the whim of a selection committee that, while theoretically independent, has an interest in keeping in the good graces of the person with the purse strings. I am familiar with it, because as much as I hate the game, these are the rules of the day and refusing to play will put people other than myself out of work.
Sounds like hyperbole, and your percentage of tax payers money going toward research is off by a magnitude. Anyway, care to back up these percentages? You'd be surprised how small the portion of the budget that "Obamacare" takes. When I hear "redistribution of wealth" a little red flag indicating bullshit goes off in my head. Let's try to leave the flamboyant talking points to the republican pundits. I could expound on how I also believe entitlement programs are eating up a good portion of our budget. Despite how juicy a topic that would be, it really doesn't apply to research funding does it? It's just a distraction from the main topic. Besides we wouldn't be talking about the real source of our current deficit which is tax payer money going to fund two foreign wars and the previous administration's unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for the wars which was unprecedented. I guess when Pres. Bush talked about sacrifice he wasn't talking to the millionaires. See how distracting and off topic that was?
Excuse me for not being completely specific. The 100% for R&D was relative to 100% of the tax dollars spent on R&D, not the entire budget. You are absolutely correct that the R&D expenditure is trivial compared to entitlement programs. And as though the R&D expenditures are wildly inefficient, I would choose to keep them over entitlement programs in a heartbeat. As flawed as they are, the R&D expenditures do produce useful results, and the system could be improved.
No, I don't care to backup the numbers relating to the inefficiencies of government. It varies by agency and the actual percentage is not necessarily relevant to the point unless you intend to argue that government is perfectly efficient. For the sake of discussion I'll spot you 20 points and still content the government taking in taxes to "invest" the money elsewhere is a wildly inefficient system of wealth redistribution that only rewards government bloat.
Again, you falsely label me as a Republican and assume I think Bush was great. Bush started a massive invasion and attempted erosion of our rights that Obama has continued and expanded. You assume I believe Obama is full of shit, and you are correct. However, your assumption of my view of Bush is incorrect, as he was full of shit as well.
Most of the proposals I've seen were vetted by a experts within the field of research.... Luckily the overwhelming majority of the research grants being awarded are for legitimate mainstream science research and development.
Now let's get rid of another straw man: the unnamed government bureaucrat. It's another boogie man that fills the republican talking points. I bet you'd be surprised to know that the vast majority of non-competitive grants issued are from earmarks allocated by senators (from both parties republican and democrats alike).
You need to see more proposals. The title of "expert" in the organization is loosely applied. Kind of like "sanit
Sorry, forgot to add that eliminating the Federal government is not the goal, but weakening it to the point it is almost irrelevant is a good idea, just as the founders intended.
You have a point, kind of. Congress sets the priorities. The agencies carry out the dirty work. To eliminate the agencies, we need Congress to make it so. Get out and vote!
Why do you assume "fortune" has anything to do with it? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Quite opposite, as I worked my ass off to put myself through school, build my career, and live a comfortable life?
Let me ask you this: why do you HATE your fellow Americans so much that you are so willing to take what they worked to earn and give it to those who, far too often, have not worked to better their own situation?
If you want to redistribute wealth, put up or shut up. Sell your belongings and write a check for your entire net worth to the government so they may give it to the less fortunate. You got all your stuff once and obviously have the ability to do it again.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is ridiculous for Apple to charge anything. They are taking care of the distribution system, payment collection system, and maintaining the "store" (that little "walled garden" many on /. bemoan but users seem to be just fine with), and all the little headaches that come from maintaining all these things. That should be something they provide you for free since you are gracing them with your app to sell. Do you think you could provide all these things for yourself for $99?
If you want visibility, market your product. It isn't Apple's job to give every new app top billing in the store.
Of course, for the unsuccessful developers the story is clear. They had a technically superior product that the market would have rushed to if somehow Apple hadn't screwed them.
The idea here isn't to be an Apple fan. The goal is to ask for a bit of honesty. Quit focusing on all that Apple doesn't give you. Your $99 is not without return.
Yeah, but don't let facts get in the way of installing x-ray machines at airports.
Just wait. The idiots at DHS will realize what you said one day, and then we'll have scanners at all the venues you listed. For your safety, of course.
Mod parent up.
I know your post meant to highlight how bad the TSA is, but it really pointed out the UK is much, much worse because you live in fear of women that might want to protect themselves from physically stronger assailants.
Do the scanners really pose a health threat?
It is quite certain they are not good for you.
Scanning tools at the hospital have to pass high hurdles to be certified for use. The scanners at the airport were installed such that they circumvented such certification. Do you think it would have been necessary to circumvent the certification if they would have passed?
Mod parent up, although he did leave out ignorance to complete panic and greed.
You are still not safe.
You do understand that since the TSA is searching for the rogue bottle of water or shampoo that is 3.1 oz instead of 3 oz they are letting guns, knives, and who knows what else through the checkpoints. You do understand there are multiple paths to get nefarious things on an airplane. You do realize that the passengers on the plane no longer believe that compliance is the proper response and will deal with threats onboard such as the shoe and underwear bombers.
The TSA ensuring your "safety" is an illusion. If you believe it, then good for you - Santa still comes down the chimney and eats the cookies you left out. The TSA is security theater -- it looks like they are busy doing useful things, but in the end it is all an act.
And used cocaine, and visited strip clubs. So they believed it as all ok because of their jihad? Is that how we are continuing to believe they were radical Muslims?
No. We continue to believe they were radical Muslims because they killed themselves, a plane load of people, and thousands on the ground in the name of their faith.
Sincerely,
Captain Obvious
They took "Anonymous" about as seriously as they take any snitch. Do you actually think that Mexican drug cartels consider Anonymous a serious threat? Are you fucking retarded?
Yeah, they go through the trouble of killing someone and displaying their mutilated bodies as foreplay. Are you fucking retarded?
They kill snitches and display their mutilated bodies because snitches are dangerous to the organization. They harm the families of snitches because snitches are dangerous to the organization. The more public the execution and the more those around the victim are harmed, the more dangerous they were to the organization.
That's why the US marshals exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service
And when that fails, that is why we have the Second Amendment.
According to the government, yes.
For flash memory (if I understand it correctly, open to doubt) a bit is basically a capacitor with an RC time constant of years and a double-gate MOSFET hooked up that permit the passive reading of capacitor state. The default, energetically ground state of a bit is 1. Writing a 0 to a bit "flashes" electrons across a quantum boundary to invert the capacitor state, and the inverted state is very slightly higher energy (and increases the interbit energy as well in a manner similar to the HDD platter).
You do not understand it correctly.
Actually, NAND is "erased" to a 1.
His understanding of NAND flash is a bit better than yours. NAND program and erases must be verified. It is possible to have a state where you can't read it as a 0 or read it as a 1, which is indeed undefined.
It is cleaver though, how you claim there is no difference between an erased block and a block that is storing all ones, since, as you pointed out, these are the same states. Back to what you meant to say, and what most folks would have read...
There is indeed a difference in energy state between a programmed and erased bit. That is exactly how you can tell the difference between the two. In one state you have electrons driven to the floating gate. In the other state you have electrons driven off of the floating gate.
At the end of the day, the only interesting thing about the professor's work is that his paper answering this unimportant question that no one asked can actually get published.
And to the grandparent post, non-volatile memory does not require power to "hold the electrons in position".
I think it could be argued that you may actually be safer while being constantly monitored.
No, it is the government that is safer while you are being constantly monitored.
This will be restricted to only legitimate reasons for data. There is absolutely no way it will be abused.
You are wasting your time. The folks that get that spun up on topics have no interest in logic, reason, or facts.
Unfortunately saying the United Nations has become a useless body is an incorrect statement. The United Nations has become a harmful body that is being used as a puppet for ridiculous ideas. The entire thing should be disbanded.
That made me laugh. I'd give you mod points if it were possible for me to do so on this thread.
Who defined your fair share? You? Why do you get to define my fair share? I defined my view of your fair share and you didn't like it. Do you understand how percentages work and that "the rich" already pay far more than everyone else?
Define unfortunate. You recognize that "the poor" in America have it pretty well. There are certainly people in need, but by the definitions used, the poor have it very well compared to the Ethopians you compare to. By the way, you do realize Ethopia is not a state, correct?
You do also realize that taxing "the rich" more to continue funding expanded entitlement programs for the "poor" is not the same thing as funding public education, right?
I think it would be more accurate to say that government solicit proposals from public and private entities for solutions to a given problem, and the proposal that provides the most value to the tax payer wins. I think most republicans would agree with that system since it introduces privatization of research. The government still needs to be involved so that the research that is funded by taxpayers should benefit all tax payers not just the company that discovers the solution.
Ideally, it works the way you "think". In reality, it does not. Quite a bit of the research dollars are spent on fairly wide open grants, chosen at the whim of a selection committee that, while theoretically independent, has an interest in keeping in the good graces of the person with the purse strings. I am familiar with it, because as much as I hate the game, these are the rules of the day and refusing to play will put people other than myself out of work.
Sounds like hyperbole, and your percentage of tax payers money going toward research is off by a magnitude. Anyway, care to back up these percentages? You'd be surprised how small the portion of the budget that "Obamacare" takes. When I hear "redistribution of wealth" a little red flag indicating bullshit goes off in my head. Let's try to leave the flamboyant talking points to the republican pundits. I could expound on how I also believe entitlement programs are eating up a good portion of our budget. Despite how juicy a topic that would be, it really doesn't apply to research funding does it? It's just a distraction from the main topic. Besides we wouldn't be talking about the real source of our current deficit which is tax payer money going to fund two foreign wars and the previous administration's unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for the wars which was unprecedented. I guess when Pres. Bush talked about sacrifice he wasn't talking to the millionaires. See how distracting and off topic that was?
Excuse me for not being completely specific. The 100% for R&D was relative to 100% of the tax dollars spent on R&D, not the entire budget. You are absolutely correct that the R&D expenditure is trivial compared to entitlement programs. And as though the R&D expenditures are wildly inefficient, I would choose to keep them over entitlement programs in a heartbeat. As flawed as they are, the R&D expenditures do produce useful results, and the system could be improved.
No, I don't care to backup the numbers relating to the inefficiencies of government. It varies by agency and the actual percentage is not necessarily relevant to the point unless you intend to argue that government is perfectly efficient. For the sake of discussion I'll spot you 20 points and still content the government taking in taxes to "invest" the money elsewhere is a wildly inefficient system of wealth redistribution that only rewards government bloat.
Again, you falsely label me as a Republican and assume I think Bush was great. Bush started a massive invasion and attempted erosion of our rights that Obama has continued and expanded. You assume I believe Obama is full of shit, and you are correct. However, your assumption of my view of Bush is incorrect, as he was full of shit as well.
Most of the proposals I've seen were vetted by a experts within the field of research. ... Luckily the overwhelming majority of the research grants being awarded are for legitimate mainstream science research and development.
Now let's get rid of another straw man: the unnamed government bureaucrat. It's another boogie man that fills the republican talking points. I bet you'd be surprised to know that the vast majority of non-competitive grants issued are from earmarks allocated by senators (from both parties republican and democrats alike).
You need to see more proposals. The title of "expert" in the organization is loosely applied. Kind of like "sanit
Sorry, forgot to add that eliminating the Federal government is not the goal, but weakening it to the point it is almost irrelevant is a good idea, just as the founders intended.
Holding up California as a good example is like saying we should put the Greek politicians in charge over here.
There are already heavy penalties for trying to do business in California.
You have a point, kind of. Congress sets the priorities. The agencies carry out the dirty work. To eliminate the agencies, we need Congress to make it so. Get out and vote!
Why do you assume "fortune" has anything to do with it? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Quite opposite, as I worked my ass off to put myself through school, build my career, and live a comfortable life?
Let me ask you this: why do you HATE your fellow Americans so much that you are so willing to take what they worked to earn and give it to those who, far too often, have not worked to better their own situation?
If you want to redistribute wealth, put up or shut up. Sell your belongings and write a check for your entire net worth to the government so they may give it to the less fortunate. You got all your stuff once and obviously have the ability to do it again.
Yeah, I didn't think so.