The quota for sick days is low because there's not much respect for working people by people that are getting rich off of them. It gets better the higher up the payscale you go (particularly in an office environment, where they've finally figured out that one person coming in sick means having dozens of people sick and underperforming for weeks on end while the infection runs its course) but it's still a problem that needs to be managed.
People work better when they're healthy and well rested, and people that are healthy and well rested tend to stay that way.
I don't know many people that call in sick for vacation days; we don't actually have an allotment of days at my office. You're just expected to tell people that you're sick so the work can be taken care of, take care of yourself, and come back as soon as is reasonable. But I'm a Canadian in Canada. It's been like this more or less my entire professional life.
It's a matter of active debate whether or not a virus is alive or not. While generally we accept that they're not alive, it's not as black and white as that.
The common claim that viruses aren't alive because they can't reproduce on their own is true of literally all parasites--things that reproduce in my gut can't reproduce outside of my gut. They need me to reproduce. Without my environment and machinery, they die. Figs and wasps are so tightly intertwined that they literally can't exist without one another, but there's no hesitation in calling either one 'alive'.
Anyway, it's a colloquial usage and isn't really germane (ha ha) to the topic at hand; your pedantry isn't obviously correct or useful.:)
I do both. I use pharmaceuticals to make it easier to sleep, and then I'll spend up to 20 hours out of a 24 hour day asleep. I almost can't help it; now that I'm in my mid-30s, being sick means falling asleep almost at random if I've got a cold or the flu.
The times where I can get in a full day of sleeping are definitely the times where I recover best. Wake up, eat like it's going out of style, then back to bed when you can. It's the only way you can convince your body to devote its resources to healing itself.
But at least the ones that accept it have the good sense to defer to experts.
The one thing people need to know about science is that you don't have to take the word of any one experiment or any one person. It's very much like medicine in that way. By all means, get a second opinion. And a third. But if 99 doctors tell you that you have a tumour and one doctor says that it's psychosomatic, the rational choice is to trust the 99 doctors.
Nearly everyone with training says that it's us. I've got just enough schooling in climate science from University to follow some of the actual science, as opposed to the science that gets reported in the media. I can't do the work myself, but I can read enough to tell you that I'm convinced by the models and empirical evidence rather than just the bluster and anecdotal evidence.
But it would be really great if the people that deny that it's happening could stop blocking what we need to do to fix the problem for their own selfish reasons.
Arctic Ice extent expanding this year is no surprise--most climate scientists predicted that would happen this year. Why? Because it was SO LOW last year, it basically had no direction to go but up.
If you roll snake eyes on your first roll, don't be surprised if your next roll is better.
The shell company that holds the patents itself produces no products, but Apple and Microsoft certainly doâ"it's just that they hold the patents jointly through this 'Rockstar' entity.
If this weird patent system is still what we have in place, this sort of joint ownership should be allowed. Leaving aside the relevance and desirability of the patent system today, I can't really see a problem with this. It's not really the same as a company that's never been associated with any endeavour related to the patents they own and who exist only to bilk money out of other people.
This person may not have the right to make money off of their work, but if they don't want to give it away, you have no right to TAKE it.
If they choose to offer it up for donations, that's their business. If they want to charge for it, that's also their business. But the moment you want to use their product, you should be bound by their rules.
When you go to buy a phone, do you only pay the cost of materials? Apparently, that's all you think it's worth, since you're arguing that taking the 'bits' doesn't deprive anyone of anything. Well, if you go and get a phone, maybe you should just pay for the cost of the sand that it took to make the silicon and that's it, hmm? That's all that's really in there, after all: silicon, some plastic, some aluminum and a nice layer of bits. That's, what, $50 worth of materials?
The value isn't the bits, the value is the WORK. This is the same reason why I pay for a haircut, despite the fact that I leave with LESS than when I came in.
The only one imposing anything on anyone else is you. The author of a work that has posted it in an app store in an attempt to make revenue is playing by all the rules in their game--you're the one circumventing them and it's bullshit. You have no moral justification for your actions. If you use the application that was made, pay for it. If you don't, don't. But don't try to tell me that you get to use it and not pay for it.
I've had my iPhone 4 for 3 years. I'll keep it until next year, so that'll be 4 years. I'm sorry that the first gen iPad got the short end of the stick, but it's the exception, not the rule. Android devices work in the other direction--I don't know of any that have been supported with the latest updates for 4 years.
I think they've properly settled into their groove. If you get a new iPad Air, it'll have a 64-bit processor in it and be fairly future-proof. You'll almost certainly get 3 or 4 years out of that.
This is WAY less of an upgrade treadmill than I was on for PCs or even my Mac desktops a few years ago.
And I'll end up reiterating stuff already in my reply: because in the short term, you want to cater to the people that are spending money, and it's useful to know what devices they're using for that. Maybe you should be providing an app if you want to encourage people to buy more. Or perhaps if you know what kind of device is being used, you can modify your site to be friendlier to them. Or, even more simplistically, if you know I'm ordering on an iPad, maybe you want to offer some iPad accessories to me before I hit the checkout.
To date, all pieces of evidence point towards iOS users being more willing or more able to spend money on their mobile devices, whether you're talking about apps or online sales like this. In general, it's probably easier to get people willing to spend money to spend a little more rather than trying to get someone who doesn't want to make these purchases to spend at all.
It's important because money is involved, basically.
If you're trying to advertise and encourage people to buy stuff, it makes sense to know who's going to buy things and how they're willing to buy them.
I like buying things on my iPad or iPhone from sites like Amazon. The experience is good and there's not much hassle. I spend almost no time at my home desktop machine now that I have an iPad, so if Amazon puts more money into the iPad user experience, it benefits people like me and apparently has a return on investment because I'm not alone in being willing to buy stuff from them from my mobile device.
It's also interesting. Why is this happening? Is it because there are people like me that are now 'post-PC'? Are those people more likely to be iOS users? Also, I bought my Mom an iPad mini last Christmas, and I bet a lot of other tech-ish people did the same or similar just to save themselves tech-support hassles. So people like my Mom that aren't super good with tech might now be doing shopping on their favourite web device, and those people may disproportionately fall in the iOS camp.
It'd be interesting to know. Are you really not curious at all? It doesn't have to be an iOS vs. Android thing, really. There's clearly a dichotomy, but there's no value judgement to be made unless you're really invested in being partisan about it.
In the end, this benefits Android users as well. This is more a matter of who to target first, but a properly constructed mobile site is good for everyone with a mobile device.
I like how everyone takes this rumour as EXTREMELY credible, like this is definitely what we're getting next year. Apple works on lots of stuff. They've probably been working with the ergonomics of curved screens in mockups for years, but who knows?
I like Apple rumours as much as the next guy, but this is clickbait. Nobody knows what Apple will do for their phones next year. They'll be faster, and maybe they'll be bigger. They'll probably have a different design, but I suspect that the design will actually stay more or less the same. They've got a lot invested in their relatively iconic design. You may not like the design of the iPhone, but it's recognisable, and that's important.
I dunno, doesn't seem to help people being stung by jellyfish.:)
I think we might be able to engineer our way out of the worst of it, but it's clear that without the benefit of sheer numbers and biomass, jellyfish can wildly out-compete already struggling ecosystems. If we don't want to be eating jellyfish chips for the next 100 years as our main source of seafood, we're really going to have to do better with regards to the ocean.
The problem is that it takes whole ecosystems to successfully fend off encroaching jellyfish, which is why they're on the rise--the ecosystems are collapsing.
There are a few creatures that eat jellyfish, but they eat EVERYTHING. Once the ecosystem starts to crumble, jellyfish feed into the loop by eating larvae and fry and eggs and anything available. They're good in anoxic environments, they're not affected by acidification (since they have no hard parts that are vulnerable; the only hard part they have isn't impacted), and they provide low nutritional value back to the ocean despite their intake.
It's a bit of a miracle that the oceans ever moved past the jellyfish stage at all. They're very old, really adaptable, and very, very good at surviving.
Well, yes. I agree, mostly. But the cost of an operation isn't entirely fixed, people need to get paid, equipment needs to get bought, etc. A government funded system can bargain more effectively for those sorts of provisions.
Also, a lawyer friend of mine once told me that you DO bargain with a supermarket when you buy something. They put a price on the product, but that's just what they WANT for it. In theory, you could try to talk them out of that price until you find something mutually agreeable.
Additional data point: WiFi networking hinges on a patent based on research done at CSIRO (in Australia) that was looking into miniature black holes.
So-called blue sky research is of incredible importance, and you can't predict what will come out of it. What private corporation would ever fund that sort of black hole research? You can't know what's going to create a winner before you start--if we knew that, we'd only start the projects that we knew were winners ahead of time, obviously.
Governments need to fund things that have no obvious profit end-goal or endeavours where profit is antithetical to the end-goal. Governments should generally fund and run health care because a healthy population would put the health care industry out of business--the health care industry makes more money when it does a bad job than when it does a good one. Roads have no obvious profitable end-goal, by and large. And so it is with speculative research.
This is, incidentally, why corporations also need to pay taxes. They benefit from healthy workers and an infrastructure that allows them to move their products and employees.
As usual, espousing one extreme or the other (pure corporatism vs. pure government control) is basically disaster. There IS a happy middle ground.
The Objective-C spec (absent of the Apple APIs) is much, much smaller than the C++ spec, and it's a proper superset of standard C. Any ANSI C program will compile as an objective C program.
C++ has a massive spec and even when you know what you're doing, you're pretty likely to shoot yourself in the foot at some point. A friend of mine recently joked that the motto of C++ should be, "Yes, well, don't." As in: "I can do this amazing thing in C++ and it's totally legal!" "Yes, well, don't." Pretty much every C++ programmer I know got a chuckle out of that.
I've been programming in C++ on a daily basis for well over 10 years, and there's just so much to hate. The Objective-C syntax is a bit weird, but it's straight forward once you get used to it. C# is possibly a cleaner syntactic representation of similar principals, but C++ is the only fright pig in the room here.
Go to AnandTech and look at the benchmarks for the A7. It is *by far* the fastest processor currently on the market (other than the Intel that isn't actually in anything). It clocks lower and has fewer cores, but still wildly outperforms anything inside a Samsung right now. The Snapdragons can't quite keep up.
And, actually, if you look at those benchmarks, you'll also realise that the iPhone 5 (and the A6 inside it) still come in near the top of the pack, despite being a year old.
There are plenty of reasons to not like Apple hardware, but performance and performance per watt aren't among them.
That's a deliberately obtuse answer and you know it. OBVIOUSLY it's doing things in the background. You'd think with 10 years of people beating on it from every angle, someone would've figured out what all these magic things are. What are users getting for all this background processing?
And if our ability to understand what's going on in the background is so poor, how can we ever trust the OS to do what we want it to? (I know the answer for a lot of folks out there is, "we can't".) It's possible to get process listings and logs, and apparently none of these explain it. But maybe someone out there that used to work for Microsoft can answer the question--you think we'd have better luck actually asking Microsoft themselves what the answer is?
Slashdot Mirror
The quota for sick days is low because there's not much respect for working people by people that are getting rich off of them. It gets better the higher up the payscale you go (particularly in an office environment, where they've finally figured out that one person coming in sick means having dozens of people sick and underperforming for weeks on end while the infection runs its course) but it's still a problem that needs to be managed.
People work better when they're healthy and well rested, and people that are healthy and well rested tend to stay that way.
I don't know many people that call in sick for vacation days; we don't actually have an allotment of days at my office. You're just expected to tell people that you're sick so the work can be taken care of, take care of yourself, and come back as soon as is reasonable. But I'm a Canadian in Canada. It's been like this more or less my entire professional life.
It's a matter of active debate whether or not a virus is alive or not. While generally we accept that they're not alive, it's not as black and white as that.
The common claim that viruses aren't alive because they can't reproduce on their own is true of literally all parasites--things that reproduce in my gut can't reproduce outside of my gut. They need me to reproduce. Without my environment and machinery, they die. Figs and wasps are so tightly intertwined that they literally can't exist without one another, but there's no hesitation in calling either one 'alive'.
Anyway, it's a colloquial usage and isn't really germane (ha ha) to the topic at hand; your pedantry isn't obviously correct or useful. :)
I do both. I use pharmaceuticals to make it easier to sleep, and then I'll spend up to 20 hours out of a 24 hour day asleep. I almost can't help it; now that I'm in my mid-30s, being sick means falling asleep almost at random if I've got a cold or the flu.
The times where I can get in a full day of sleeping are definitely the times where I recover best. Wake up, eat like it's going out of style, then back to bed when you can. It's the only way you can convince your body to devote its resources to healing itself.
But at least the ones that accept it have the good sense to defer to experts.
The one thing people need to know about science is that you don't have to take the word of any one experiment or any one person. It's very much like medicine in that way. By all means, get a second opinion. And a third. But if 99 doctors tell you that you have a tumour and one doctor says that it's psychosomatic, the rational choice is to trust the 99 doctors.
Nearly everyone with training says that it's us. I've got just enough schooling in climate science from University to follow some of the actual science, as opposed to the science that gets reported in the media. I can't do the work myself, but I can read enough to tell you that I'm convinced by the models and empirical evidence rather than just the bluster and anecdotal evidence.
But it would be really great if the people that deny that it's happening could stop blocking what we need to do to fix the problem for their own selfish reasons.
Great! Maybe we can get the crazy deniers to realise that the economy won't implode if we spend money on something other than oil subsidies.
$10 trillion worth of jobs? Why isn't everyone piling into that bandwagon?
Arctic Ice extent expanding this year is no surprise--most climate scientists predicted that would happen this year. Why? Because it was SO LOW last year, it basically had no direction to go but up.
If you roll snake eyes on your first roll, don't be surprised if your next roll is better.
Someone PLEASE mod this up. :D
The shell company that holds the patents itself produces no products, but Apple and Microsoft certainly doâ"it's just that they hold the patents jointly through this 'Rockstar' entity.
If this weird patent system is still what we have in place, this sort of joint ownership should be allowed. Leaving aside the relevance and desirability of the patent system today, I can't really see a problem with this. It's not really the same as a company that's never been associated with any endeavour related to the patents they own and who exist only to bilk money out of other people.
You don't need to create a contact in iOS 7. Just find the number after the call is done and ask for it to be blocked. It's near the bottom.
This person may not have the right to make money off of their work, but if they don't want to give it away, you have no right to TAKE it.
If they choose to offer it up for donations, that's their business. If they want to charge for it, that's also their business. But the moment you want to use their product, you should be bound by their rules.
When you go to buy a phone, do you only pay the cost of materials? Apparently, that's all you think it's worth, since you're arguing that taking the 'bits' doesn't deprive anyone of anything. Well, if you go and get a phone, maybe you should just pay for the cost of the sand that it took to make the silicon and that's it, hmm? That's all that's really in there, after all: silicon, some plastic, some aluminum and a nice layer of bits. That's, what, $50 worth of materials?
The value isn't the bits, the value is the WORK. This is the same reason why I pay for a haircut, despite the fact that I leave with LESS than when I came in.
The only one imposing anything on anyone else is you. The author of a work that has posted it in an app store in an attempt to make revenue is playing by all the rules in their game--you're the one circumventing them and it's bullshit. You have no moral justification for your actions. If you use the application that was made, pay for it. If you don't, don't. But don't try to tell me that you get to use it and not pay for it.
Well, in benchmarks, Safari's rendering is faster, even if the UI isn't. :/
I turned off all the animations and things. I think it's in the accessibility section.
It's not bad. This is much better than when the iPhone 3G was upgraded to iOS 5 (I think? Maybe 4?)
I find the apps are generally worse than the OS itself...which means it's good that Apple is demanding that they optimise for iOS 7.
Parallax isn't available on the 4, just the 4s and up.
I've had my iPhone 4 for 3 years. I'll keep it until next year, so that'll be 4 years. I'm sorry that the first gen iPad got the short end of the stick, but it's the exception, not the rule. Android devices work in the other direction--I don't know of any that have been supported with the latest updates for 4 years.
I think they've properly settled into their groove. If you get a new iPad Air, it'll have a 64-bit processor in it and be fairly future-proof. You'll almost certainly get 3 or 4 years out of that.
This is WAY less of an upgrade treadmill than I was on for PCs or even my Mac desktops a few years ago.
This is really interesting stuff.
Can you tell me the name of your band? I'd like to hear your music!
And I'll end up reiterating stuff already in my reply: because in the short term, you want to cater to the people that are spending money, and it's useful to know what devices they're using for that. Maybe you should be providing an app if you want to encourage people to buy more. Or perhaps if you know what kind of device is being used, you can modify your site to be friendlier to them. Or, even more simplistically, if you know I'm ordering on an iPad, maybe you want to offer some iPad accessories to me before I hit the checkout.
To date, all pieces of evidence point towards iOS users being more willing or more able to spend money on their mobile devices, whether you're talking about apps or online sales like this. In general, it's probably easier to get people willing to spend money to spend a little more rather than trying to get someone who doesn't want to make these purchases to spend at all.
More data means more money.
It's important because money is involved, basically.
If you're trying to advertise and encourage people to buy stuff, it makes sense to know who's going to buy things and how they're willing to buy them.
I like buying things on my iPad or iPhone from sites like Amazon. The experience is good and there's not much hassle. I spend almost no time at my home desktop machine now that I have an iPad, so if Amazon puts more money into the iPad user experience, it benefits people like me and apparently has a return on investment because I'm not alone in being willing to buy stuff from them from my mobile device.
It's also interesting. Why is this happening? Is it because there are people like me that are now 'post-PC'? Are those people more likely to be iOS users? Also, I bought my Mom an iPad mini last Christmas, and I bet a lot of other tech-ish people did the same or similar just to save themselves tech-support hassles. So people like my Mom that aren't super good with tech might now be doing shopping on their favourite web device, and those people may disproportionately fall in the iOS camp.
It'd be interesting to know. Are you really not curious at all? It doesn't have to be an iOS vs. Android thing, really. There's clearly a dichotomy, but there's no value judgement to be made unless you're really invested in being partisan about it.
In the end, this benefits Android users as well. This is more a matter of who to target first, but a properly constructed mobile site is good for everyone with a mobile device.
I like how everyone takes this rumour as EXTREMELY credible, like this is definitely what we're getting next year. Apple works on lots of stuff. They've probably been working with the ergonomics of curved screens in mockups for years, but who knows?
I like Apple rumours as much as the next guy, but this is clickbait. Nobody knows what Apple will do for their phones next year. They'll be faster, and maybe they'll be bigger. They'll probably have a different design, but I suspect that the design will actually stay more or less the same. They've got a lot invested in their relatively iconic design. You may not like the design of the iPhone, but it's recognisable, and that's important.
I dunno, doesn't seem to help people being stung by jellyfish. :)
I think we might be able to engineer our way out of the worst of it, but it's clear that without the benefit of sheer numbers and biomass, jellyfish can wildly out-compete already struggling ecosystems. If we don't want to be eating jellyfish chips for the next 100 years as our main source of seafood, we're really going to have to do better with regards to the ocean.
The problem is that it takes whole ecosystems to successfully fend off encroaching jellyfish, which is why they're on the rise--the ecosystems are collapsing.
There are a few creatures that eat jellyfish, but they eat EVERYTHING. Once the ecosystem starts to crumble, jellyfish feed into the loop by eating larvae and fry and eggs and anything available. They're good in anoxic environments, they're not affected by acidification (since they have no hard parts that are vulnerable; the only hard part they have isn't impacted), and they provide low nutritional value back to the ocean despite their intake.
It's a bit of a miracle that the oceans ever moved past the jellyfish stage at all. They're very old, really adaptable, and very, very good at surviving.
Well, yes. I agree, mostly. But the cost of an operation isn't entirely fixed, people need to get paid, equipment needs to get bought, etc. A government funded system can bargain more effectively for those sorts of provisions.
Also, a lawyer friend of mine once told me that you DO bargain with a supermarket when you buy something. They put a price on the product, but that's just what they WANT for it. In theory, you could try to talk them out of that price until you find something mutually agreeable.
Additional data point: WiFi networking hinges on a patent based on research done at CSIRO (in Australia) that was looking into miniature black holes.
So-called blue sky research is of incredible importance, and you can't predict what will come out of it. What private corporation would ever fund that sort of black hole research? You can't know what's going to create a winner before you start--if we knew that, we'd only start the projects that we knew were winners ahead of time, obviously.
Governments need to fund things that have no obvious profit end-goal or endeavours where profit is antithetical to the end-goal. Governments should generally fund and run health care because a healthy population would put the health care industry out of business--the health care industry makes more money when it does a bad job than when it does a good one. Roads have no obvious profitable end-goal, by and large. And so it is with speculative research.
This is, incidentally, why corporations also need to pay taxes. They benefit from healthy workers and an infrastructure that allows them to move their products and employees.
As usual, espousing one extreme or the other (pure corporatism vs. pure government control) is basically disaster. There IS a happy middle ground.
The Objective-C spec (absent of the Apple APIs) is much, much smaller than the C++ spec, and it's a proper superset of standard C. Any ANSI C program will compile as an objective C program.
C++ has a massive spec and even when you know what you're doing, you're pretty likely to shoot yourself in the foot at some point. A friend of mine recently joked that the motto of C++ should be, "Yes, well, don't." As in: "I can do this amazing thing in C++ and it's totally legal!" "Yes, well, don't." Pretty much every C++ programmer I know got a chuckle out of that.
I've been programming in C++ on a daily basis for well over 10 years, and there's just so much to hate. The Objective-C syntax is a bit weird, but it's straight forward once you get used to it. C# is possibly a cleaner syntactic representation of similar principals, but C++ is the only fright pig in the room here.
Go to AnandTech and look at the benchmarks for the A7. It is *by far* the fastest processor currently on the market (other than the Intel that isn't actually in anything). It clocks lower and has fewer cores, but still wildly outperforms anything inside a Samsung right now. The Snapdragons can't quite keep up.
And, actually, if you look at those benchmarks, you'll also realise that the iPhone 5 (and the A6 inside it) still come in near the top of the pack, despite being a year old.
There are plenty of reasons to not like Apple hardware, but performance and performance per watt aren't among them.
Even when comparing to OS X on Haswell, battery life under Windows underperforms rather badly. ...Which you would know if you had read the article.
That's a deliberately obtuse answer and you know it. OBVIOUSLY it's doing things in the background. You'd think with 10 years of people beating on it from every angle, someone would've figured out what all these magic things are. What are users getting for all this background processing?
And if our ability to understand what's going on in the background is so poor, how can we ever trust the OS to do what we want it to? (I know the answer for a lot of folks out there is, "we can't".) It's possible to get process listings and logs, and apparently none of these explain it. But maybe someone out there that used to work for Microsoft can answer the question--you think we'd have better luck actually asking Microsoft themselves what the answer is?