So Apple is enforcing their rules which they've openly and clearly published
When I tried to view the rules on Apple.com, it asked me to log in with an Apple ID. Where should a prospective developer view these rules before spending four figures on a Mac, an iPad, and a developer license?
You can create your apple id for free, without using an ipad or mac.
The short, mangled DNA fragments from the museums' passenger pigeons don't overlap enough for a computer to reassemble them, but the modern band-tailed pigeon genome could serve as a scaffold. Mapping passenger pigeon fragments onto the band-tailed sequence would suggest their original order."
Not quite the original, so not exactly a de-extinction. More of a new breed of Frankenbird.
It's funny that you don't both support the concept of "dipping sales" as the OP questioned (it even remains as part of your subject!). Sales are not dipping; they just are growing at the astronomical rate they once were.
Yawn. The death toll for Apple has been ringing by the likes of you for 30 years. Still hasn't happened. Oh, yeah but "for real, this time." Gimme a break.
Ah yes, another false-narrative bit of propaganda from Progressives, the laughable idea that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are "extreme" and "radical" and so is anyone that speaks out in their defense. The Constitution is the *norm* and the increasingly more-Progressive/Left the nation has been going and the Progressives and fellow political-travelers that advocate for such are the "extreme" and "radical" ones. Progressives and those on the Left are who wish to grant government powers and control that are not granted to it in a plain-language reading (as it was intentionally written to be read so) of the Constitution.
Holy shit, you're insane. Progressives don't think the Constitution and the Bill or Rights are extreme or radical, we just think that all the laws passed under the constitutional framework and upheld in the courts are just as legitimate as the original paper. Do you think there should be no laws but the Constitution? You're deranged.
You are also wrong about the SCOTUS determining what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS interprets what is written in the Constitution and does it's best to make a decision in a case before it that most-closely comports with the intent and meaning of the relevant portion of the Constitution. It does *not* have the power to "find" by some tortured re-interpretation of the meaning of plain words and dodgy extrapolations, new Rights, entitlements, or Federal powers.
So whenever you don't like the SCOTUS decisions, you just unilaterally declare them as tortured re-interpretations. Right!
But all of this is moot regarding whether, in the end, the SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. We the People are who makes that determination.
I think you mean YOU the people, Mr. Kazinsky II
And if, in our collective estimation, Government has gone beyond control and threatens rather than protects our "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness";...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Which is the reason for the Second Amendment, and why there is a sudden massive across-the-board push on by the government and the Progressive/Left against civilian gun ownership.
Utter nonsense. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Faux Noise. No one is coming for your guns. Arms ownership is fine. Don't you think there should be a reasonable limit to what a civilian should own? How would you feel if your neighbor exercised his "2nd amendment rights" by owning a nuclear bomb or chemical or biological weapons?
The big US economic/monetary collapse (that will either initiate or be initiated by an EU economic/monetary crisis) which is imminent, maybe only a couple of months away, will create the masses of desperate, hungry, and angry people that will provide the excuse to roll out martial law and militarized domestic forces.
Much more difficult to put US citizens in camps (as happened before in the US...*twice* in recent history...in WW1/WW2...both under Progressive POTUSs, btw) when a lot of them are well-armed and you're on *their* home-ground, not yours, regardless of how much more military force you have. If yo
So the last amendment was a long time ago. You missed the major point - the constitution is a FRAMEWORK FOR LAWS. If a law is passed through it's process and upheld through it's process, then it's just as legitimate as the original document. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean squat. The Hope and Change is working great for me - Bush's Great Depression was averted by the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act was passed - though I'd have preferred a single-payer system. Yes, I'd have preferred a more liberal agenda by Obama, but anything's better than the way the Republicans buttfuck everyone but the extremely wealthy.
The political process of approving text books for public schools in Texas leaves some things to be desired, but public schools in Texas are usually pretty good from what I've seen.
Wow, I mean just wow. Your paranoid rantings are worthy of a Kazinsky-style manifesto. Look, since you seem not to understand the Constitution that you so revere, let me enlighten you just a little - it is designed to be modified (through amendments) and is a framework for laws. Every law is passed the way the constitution spells out and can be challenged the way it spells out. You so-called originalists just don't like the laws so you claim they're unconstitutional. Well you don't get to decide, SCOTUS does - that's the way the constitution says its to be done. Yes, progressives failed - in abolishing slavery, getting women the right to vote, allowing interracial marriage, ending child labor, cleaning up our air and water, and providing education for all children regardless of how poor their parents are. Nazis, progressive? You are laughably wrong on that one. Warrantless drone strikes and indefinite detention are NOT progressive ideas - they are totalitarian (like the Nazis were).
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.
Yeah, women having sex is such a stereotype. Actually, I think women not wanting sex is the stereotype; therefore everyone must view porn at every opportunity.
Now don't accuse me of being a shill - I'm not. However, I find Apples iOS documentation to be fantastic. Built into Xcode or accessed online, the documentation includes sample code - and not just a snippet. It has full projects that you can load up and run. I almost never resort to stack overflow when I'm writing my iOS apps - the doc is simply that good, including hyperlinks to all data types and constants in the api methods.
It's an actuarial calculation. The sum of everyone paying to the insurance company must be more than the sum of what doctors are charging from the insurance company
Um, no. They invest the payments. These investments must exceed the sum they pay to the doctors.
you're an idiot.
How do you get data without meeting? make decisions? get information? contract negotiations, bidding?
meeting are work. The fact that you don't have the skills to run quality meeting makes you think they aren't real work.
Paper? some of the paper is called a check, they push to you. Other papers are called contracts, and they give the company a way to make money.
20 engineers without management or meeting equates to going out of business.
No you are an idiot. Of course some managers do something that resembles work. Many are just pushing papers around and can't make decisions. I have run plenty of meetings much more effectively than any manager I know. Sorry I made you cry.
Handheld computing, be it through handheld video game systems or through smartphones, has traditionally been a cartel. (Android has made some segments less of a cartel, but other segments still are, such as devices with physical buttons for the application's use.) Economists call a cartel an example of a market failure. Or is it your opinion that "market failure" is a contradiction?
So how does it benefit the market to use cryptography to artificially restrict the general-purpose capability of computers just because the display is smaller than 11 inches diagonal?
Slashdot Mirror
So Apple is enforcing their rules which they've openly and clearly published
When I tried to view the rules on Apple.com, it asked me to log in with an Apple ID. Where should a prospective developer view these rules before spending four figures on a Mac, an iPad, and a developer license?
You can create your apple id for free, without using an ipad or mac.
But, but, how can one bash Apple, then?
Fail. Sequester is about FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This article is about the City of Arlington, Texas PD.
The short, mangled DNA fragments from the museums' passenger pigeons don't overlap enough for a computer to reassemble them, but the modern band-tailed pigeon genome could serve as a scaffold. Mapping passenger pigeon fragments onto the band-tailed sequence would suggest their original order."
Not quite the original, so not exactly a de-extinction. More of a new breed of Frankenbird.
The USA and Israel are democracies, Iran is not.
You're right. The democratic leaders of Iran were overthrown by the US government. Look it up.
It's funny that you don't both support the concept of "dipping sales" as the OP questioned (it even remains as part of your subject!). Sales are not dipping; they just are growing at the astronomical rate they once were.
Yawn. The death toll for Apple has been ringing by the likes of you for 30 years. Still hasn't happened. Oh, yeah but "for real, this time." Gimme a break.
Are you aware, that most of the population of the USA lives on the shore? Living in a half submerged skyscraper might be novel, but kinda unhealthy.
Especially if you're in the bottom half.
Ah yes, another false-narrative bit of propaganda from Progressives, the laughable idea that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are "extreme" and "radical" and so is anyone that speaks out in their defense. The Constitution is the *norm* and the increasingly more-Progressive/Left the nation has been going and the Progressives and fellow political-travelers that advocate for such are the "extreme" and "radical" ones. Progressives and those on the Left are who wish to grant government powers and control that are not granted to it in a plain-language reading (as it was intentionally written to be read so) of the Constitution.
Holy shit, you're insane. Progressives don't think the Constitution and the Bill or Rights are extreme or radical, we just think that all the laws passed under the constitutional framework and upheld in the courts are just as legitimate as the original paper. Do you think there should be no laws but the Constitution? You're deranged.
You are also wrong about the SCOTUS determining what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS interprets what is written in the Constitution and does it's best to make a decision in a case before it that most-closely comports with the intent and meaning of the relevant portion of the Constitution. It does *not* have the power to "find" by some tortured re-interpretation of the meaning of plain words and dodgy extrapolations, new Rights, entitlements, or Federal powers.
So whenever you don't like the SCOTUS decisions, you just unilaterally declare them as tortured re-interpretations. Right!
But all of this is moot regarding whether, in the end, the SCOTUS determines what is Constitutional. We the People are who makes that determination.
I think you mean YOU the people, Mr. Kazinsky II
And if, in our collective estimation, Government has gone beyond control and threatens rather than protects our "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"; ...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Which is the reason for the Second Amendment, and why there is a sudden massive across-the-board push on by the government and the Progressive/Left against civilian gun ownership.
Utter nonsense. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Faux Noise. No one is coming for your guns. Arms ownership is fine. Don't you think there should be a reasonable limit to what a civilian should own? How would you feel if your neighbor exercised his "2nd amendment rights" by owning a nuclear bomb or chemical or biological weapons?
The big US economic/monetary collapse (that will either initiate or be initiated by an EU economic/monetary crisis) which is imminent, maybe only a couple of months away, will create the masses of desperate, hungry, and angry people that will provide the excuse to roll out martial law and militarized domestic forces.
Much more difficult to put US citizens in camps (as happened before in the US...*twice* in recent history...in WW1/WW2...both under Progressive POTUSs, btw) when a lot of them are well-armed and you're on *their* home-ground, not yours, regardless of how much more military force you have. If yo
So the last amendment was a long time ago. You missed the major point - the constitution is a FRAMEWORK FOR LAWS. If a law is passed through it's process and upheld through it's process, then it's just as legitimate as the original document. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean squat. The Hope and Change is working great for me - Bush's Great Depression was averted by the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act was passed - though I'd have preferred a single-payer system. Yes, I'd have preferred a more liberal agenda by Obama, but anything's better than the way the Republicans buttfuck everyone but the extremely wealthy.
The political process of approving text books for public schools in Texas leaves some things to be desired, but public schools in Texas are usually pretty good from what I've seen.
It's not the process - it's the content. It's the 21st century and they're still denying evolution. That's what I mean about the brain cell problem down there. At least they finally woke up and realized that family planning works https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=624284320930416&set=a.116898608335659.16274.108038612554992&type=1&theater.
Wow, I mean just wow. Your paranoid rantings are worthy of a Kazinsky-style manifesto. Look, since you seem not to understand the Constitution that you so revere, let me enlighten you just a little - it is designed to be modified (through amendments) and is a framework for laws. Every law is passed the way the constitution spells out and can be challenged the way it spells out. You so-called originalists just don't like the laws so you claim they're unconstitutional. Well you don't get to decide, SCOTUS does - that's the way the constitution says its to be done. Yes, progressives failed - in abolishing slavery, getting women the right to vote, allowing interracial marriage, ending child labor, cleaning up our air and water, and providing education for all children regardless of how poor their parents are. Nazis, progressive? You are laughably wrong on that one. Warrantless drone strikes and indefinite detention are NOT progressive ideas - they are totalitarian (like the Nazis were).
Distrust of government? That's fairly traditional conservatism.
No, thinking beyond the 1800's. That's not conservatism.
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.
As opposed to looking like what?
As opposed to: See their education textbooks.
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.
Yeah, women having sex is such a stereotype. Actually, I think women not wanting sex is the stereotype; therefore everyone must view porn at every opportunity.
How does gay porn discriminate against women? (Or, if it does, then how does straight porn discriminate against women?)
It seems to me that you can have it both ways (not that these idiots wouldn't try).
It's called bisexual porn
And it's now been found - the elusive Texas brain cell. Formerly as hidden as the Higgs Boson.
Now don't accuse me of being a shill - I'm not. However, I find Apples iOS documentation to be fantastic. Built into Xcode or accessed online, the documentation includes sample code - and not just a snippet. It has full projects that you can load up and run. I almost never resort to stack overflow when I'm writing my iOS apps - the doc is simply that good, including hyperlinks to all data types and constants in the api methods.
It's an actuarial calculation. The sum of everyone paying to the insurance company must be more than the sum of what doctors are charging from the insurance company
Um, no. They invest the payments. These investments must exceed the sum they pay to the doctors.
i'm roman_mir i can't post under my name due to a liberal conspirasy mod'ing me down
No, it's due to your constant trolling and name calling.
oh, so now you move the goal post? fine.
I didn't move the goalpost, you did. Owner != manager
Middle managers ... creating TPS for projects.
FTFY.
you're an idiot. How do you get data without meeting? make decisions? get information? contract negotiations, bidding? meeting are work. The fact that you don't have the skills to run quality meeting makes you think they aren't real work.
Paper? some of the paper is called a check, they push to you. Other papers are called contracts, and they give the company a way to make money.
20 engineers without management or meeting equates to going out of business.
No you are an idiot. Of course some managers do something that resembles work. Many are just pushing papers around and can't make decisions. I have run plenty of meetings much more effectively than any manager I know. Sorry I made you cry.
Benefit the market? Are you new to capitalism?
Handheld computing, be it through handheld video game systems or through smartphones, has traditionally been a cartel. (Android has made some segments less of a cartel, but other segments still are, such as devices with physical buttons for the application's use.) Economists call a cartel an example of a market failure . Or is it your opinion that "market failure" is a contradiction?
No, but the cartel owners certainly do.
So how does it benefit the market to use cryptography to artificially restrict the general-purpose capability of computers just because the display is smaller than 11 inches diagonal?
Benefit the market? Are you new to capitalism?
So what general-purpose computer the same size as a smartphone should people be buying instead of a smartphone?
I don't know. What general-purpose computer the size of a coin should people be buying?
Tool.
What do Danny Carey, Adam Jones (not Pac-Man), Maynard James Keenan, and Justin Chancellor have to do with anything?
The OP AC started it with calling me a tool. I was just responding in kind.