I must concede that it seems like so, not only in this case but regarding anything else. Apparently you only have to obey the law there if the other part can buy the enforcement.
Justice is not that badly warped here in this matter and in a few others, but it is just as warped (and maybe even more) when big corporations or politicians are involved.
They have to give them to you here in my country (Brazil), here your doctor can only see your tests through you. He asks for the exams, you go to the lab, they collect your samples, and when the results are ready you go there and get them (or get them through the internet) and bring them to the doctor, if you so wish. If you prefer you can just get the results and bring them to another doctor and never go back to the former one, who requested the tests, or you can bring them to both.
I don't know specifics about how the procedures are in US, but I do know that under HIPAA they must give you any results you request They can't legally refuse to do so.
The same justification could be given to forbid patients from seeing their blood tests, or even reading any medical literature. That is bullshit. Medics are not all knowing and patients are not retarded children. Patients have the right to decide for themselves what they want done with their own bodies and to fully exert this right the more information they have the better.
You may think you don't use algebra, but you do it every time you use a variable.
Furthermore mathematics is logic's formalization. If you are not able to formalize your logic it is more likely than not that you don't comprehend it well.
And that is also why most programmers can't even choose which sort algorithm they should use, and have no clue about why their SQL queries are taking 100x the resources they should take.
On the other hand, almost all IT jobs require at the very least a good part of high school math, especially logic, algebra, arithmetics and combinatory analysis.
It is indeed a bargain, for Apple, and that is why they won't ever open their system to competition.
As a poster above mentioned if you can't deal with the requirements for having a business do yourself a favor and work for someone else instead of desperately trying to sell Apps paying 30% of your Gross profit to a third party. Your willingness to do this shows that you would be much better working for someone else than on your own.
30% of your gross income should easily buy you all this if you have any hope of having a real business. It is not a bargain, regardless of how much you want to believe in this absurdity.
If you can't buy exposure with 30% of your gross income, then you don't have a business. The truth is, if you have a good enough software you don't really need the app store (and don't need to sell for $0.99). On the other hand if your app sucks, the app store won't make you rich, rest assured.
You can sell through Amazon or any other entity that decides to open an app store, or even sell yourself in your own website, which works well sometimes (see minecraft for reference).
Smearing campaigns are illegal. If Facebook tried this, which is exactly the same we are talking about here, and it can be proved, it won't end well for them. Now if they are telling strictly the truth they are within their rights to do so. The problem starts when pseudo-journalists paid by a third party consistently lie to smear their competition.
What makes you think there is more astroturfing against Apple than pro-Apple? Apple have proved time and again that it plays dirtier than any other company in existence...
Yes, but the money each one invests in that says a lot about them, and when those articles are not about making positive remarks about them, but about smearing the competition it makes them illegal in many places...
It would be very interesting if it happens to Apple too. I can safely bet Apple is the technology company that has more "journalists" in their payroll.
Being important is subjective, or at least highly dependent on circumstances (as in "important for what").
But intelligence is at the very least more valuable, even if just because of offer and demand. There are a lot more people able to bear with hard work (and therefore achieve some level of attainment) than highly intelligent people, and there is high demand for both traits. There are a lot of things you simply can't accomplish without high intelligence, and you can't really create high intelligence on demand.
I am also against judging people for past accomplishments, because that does not favor improvement, but that is just a personal opinion.
It is not used either in "colloquial English" or in "formal English", it is used in "wrong English". "Colloquial English" does not comprehend inaccuracy in the use of words.
No it is not. Intelligence is measured by how well people understand. Obviously better ability to understand makes it easier to absorb knowledge and you can even use your analogy with derivatives (as well as any analogy works), assuming you are trying to absorb knowledge as fast as you can, to point the relation it has with knowledge.
The amount of knowledge a person has is called... err... 'knowledge'. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Using the word to define knowledge levels is just a misuse of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
I must concede that it seems like so, not only in this case but regarding anything else. Apparently you only have to obey the law there if the other part can buy the enforcement.
Justice is not that badly warped here in this matter and in a few others, but it is just as warped (and maybe even more) when big corporations or politicians are involved.
They have to give them to you here in my country (Brazil), here your doctor can only see your tests through you. He asks for the exams, you go to the lab, they collect your samples, and when the results are ready you go there and get them (or get them through the internet) and bring them to the doctor, if you so wish. If you prefer you can just get the results and bring them to another doctor and never go back to the former one, who requested the tests, or you can bring them to both.
I don't know specifics about how the procedures are in US, but I do know that under HIPAA they must give you any results you request They can't legally refuse to do so.
The same justification could be given to forbid patients from seeing their blood tests, or even reading any medical literature. That is bullshit. Medics are not all knowing and patients are not retarded children. Patients have the right to decide for themselves what they want done with their own bodies and to fully exert this right the more information they have the better.
When you are making the calculations necessary to fill those forms you will inevitably use algebra and arithmetics.
You may think you don't use algebra, but you do it every time you use a variable.
Furthermore mathematics is logic's formalization. If you are not able to formalize your logic it is more likely than not that you don't comprehend it well.
And that is also why most programmers can't even choose which sort algorithm they should use, and have no clue about why their SQL queries are taking 100x the resources they should take.
On the other hand, almost all IT jobs require at the very least a good part of high school math, especially logic, algebra, arithmetics and combinatory analysis.
Simple solution. Let people be accountable for their own mistakes. Problem solved!
And they are within their rights to do so and suffer the consequences for it.
In a world where there are several Android App stores who think it is a good business to undercut Google Play:
http://danatheteacher.hubpages.com/hub/Top-Android-Market-Alternative-App-Stores
It is indeed a bargain, for Apple, and that is why they won't ever open their system to competition.
As a poster above mentioned if you can't deal with the requirements for having a business do yourself a favor and work for someone else instead of desperately trying to sell Apps paying 30% of your Gross profit to a third party. Your willingness to do this shows that you would be much better working for someone else than on your own.
30% of your gross income should easily buy you all this if you have any hope of having a real business. It is not a bargain, regardless of how much you want to believe in this absurdity.
If you can't buy exposure with 30% of your gross income, then you don't have a business. The truth is, if you have a good enough software you don't really need the app store (and don't need to sell for $0.99). On the other hand if your app sucks, the app store won't make you rich, rest assured.
You can sell through Amazon or any other entity that decides to open an app store, or even sell yourself in your own website, which works well sometimes (see minecraft for reference).
Oh, but you are not forced to sell exclusively though Google play.
Smearing campaigns are illegal. If Facebook tried this, which is exactly the same we are talking about here, and it can be proved, it won't end well for them. Now if they are telling strictly the truth they are within their rights to do so. The problem starts when pseudo-journalists paid by a third party consistently lie to smear their competition.
What makes you think there is more astroturfing against Apple than pro-Apple? Apple have proved time and again that it plays dirtier than any other company in existence...
PR firms do not pose as neutral news sources and therefore cannot smear their client's competitors without consequences.
Yes, but the money each one invests in that says a lot about them, and when those articles are not about making positive remarks about them, but about smearing the competition it makes them illegal in many places...
It would be very interesting if it happens to Apple too. I can safely bet Apple is the technology company that has more "journalists" in their payroll.
If you keep it hot but within working parameters that should do the trick. Working temperature ideally shouldn't get higher than 70 C.
Unfortunately only in very specific cases. Nowadays there are considerably more cases where extortion is legal than cases where it is not.
Being important is subjective, or at least highly dependent on circumstances (as in "important for what").
But intelligence is at the very least more valuable, even if just because of offer and demand. There are a lot more people able to bear with hard work (and therefore achieve some level of attainment) than highly intelligent people, and there is high demand for both traits. There are a lot of things you simply can't accomplish without high intelligence, and you can't really create high intelligence on demand.
I am also against judging people for past accomplishments, because that does not favor improvement, but that is just a personal opinion.
It is not used either in "colloquial English" or in "formal English", it is used in "wrong English". "Colloquial English" does not comprehend inaccuracy in the use of words.
No it is not. Intelligence is measured by how well people understand. Obviously better ability to understand makes it easier to absorb knowledge and you can even use your analogy with derivatives (as well as any analogy works), assuming you are trying to absorb knowledge as fast as you can, to point the relation it has with knowledge.
The amount of knowledge a person has is called ... err... 'knowledge'. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Using the word to define knowledge levels is just a misuse of the word.