Wait - why are they allowing them to offer at least 10 Mbps when Broadband is now 25? Why not... ya know... force them to at least offer...uhh 25!!!?????
Why have all the news stations and online articles only mention New Orleans when the entire gulf coast of Mississippi faced the storm head on and was obliterated into nothing in addition to storm surge? New Orleans simply suffered from water surge - at the fault of the city being at or below sea level. The eye of the storm hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast - not New Orleans. So while New Orleans got some storm surge and a little wind...the gulf coast got both and more than plenty of it. But no one seems to remember that part.
Thats where the eye of the storm went over. Gulfport/Biloxi was completely destroyed but lets keep posting information about just New Orleans because.. ya know.
thats from "Back to the Future" when Marty (Michael J Fox) first meets Doc at his house and tells him he is from the future. Doc asks him who the president will be in 1985.
If you have a family and that is more important to you than work, i.e. you want to be a husband/father/wife/mother first, you want to work to live instead of live to work, you care about your health and well-being, hate office politics (despite Bezos' claim to avoid red tap and politics, it is clear that things like Organization Level Review and Anytime Feedback Tool are clearly motivated and created simply for favorites and politics) then Amazon is not for you.
As a side note, with a wife and 4 children I am surprised he hasn't gotten divorce papers.
Most companies that value their employees understand the need for downtime, relaxation, family obligations and a flexible work schedule. It is clear that the only thing Amazon cares about is employees that are working..and working...at whatever cost. If you are not ok with that then you are not a 'Super star' , regardless of how good you can code or solve problems.
So again if you are not into the idea of pleasing your employer above anything else - then Amazon is not for you. It is clear that the "kind of company that amazon wants to be" is a company filled with people with no other life or personal committments and void of health issues (or family members that are ill). Again, since Bezos has a rather large family - it's amazing that things like 'paid maternity leave' doesn't exist at Amazon.
And then this quote, "he(Bezos), was able to envision a new kind of workplace: fluid but tough, with employees staying only a short time and employers demanding the maximum". So it appears that you really aren't supposed to retire at amazon. Work a little while - then leave. So if retiring at a company with 401k and stock options racked up (or with any kind of pension) is what you seek - then Amazon is not for you. If Amazon is not in it for the long haul with its employees then why should the employees return any kind of favors?
but there is loads of crap in the bottle - loads of SUGAR. Lots and lots of it. and the fizz that everyone likes eats away at your enamel. So yeah.. it is bad crap.
if thats the only place you are going to go then you might be missing out on a lot of talent because not everyone had the chance to go to or lived near an 'elite' university or didn't have the money to go. Talent/Motivation/Creativity does not come from college. Better Educated? If you are hiring software developers half of the courses in college have absolutely nothing to do with software development. Prepared? Prepared for what? The real world? working in a business? No one can prepare for that unless you get out there and DO IT and get good at it. Nothing in college prepares you for the real world environment if you are just going to classrooms
We need to get out of the mindset that going to college = smart, intelligent, motivated, talented..etc etc. A piece of paper from any college, elite or not doesn't mean squat.
NO ONE is complaining about lack of women in plumbing and brick laying and no one is complaining about lack of men in nursing, home health care, etc etc. So obviously this is a 'tug at the hearts strings' of politics...,..and for no other reason.
A strong example of their downfall are the online courses offered via iTunesU. If you want to be an iOS developer, the fact that you can watch ALL the lectures and get ALL the assignments and then converse with others doing the same thing for help/tips/hints/issues for FREE is astonishing. You don't get Stanford credit but in the end you learn. That's where I got my start.
The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman??
NO NO NO NO. The Founding Fathers did not create the Supreme Court to assure of a living document. The Founding Fathers provided a way in the Constitution for people to amend as it as we "evolve" and "progress". If we truly have evolved then we should have no problem ratifying the constitution and going through that process. This is how we change the constitution. Leaving if up to 9 judges to decided and help us evolve was not what the Founding Fathers intended or wanted -
I am not sure if you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I am saying, yes, marriage , the forming of bonding between two people was formed and defined by people long before this country was founded - but as matter of state recognition - the states get to decide who to recognize(not the federal government). Now why do marriages need recognition by the state? Good question. I wish even the states would have gotten out of that business - in this case with something so innate, so immutable, so fundamental as a union between two people. In fact, this issue probably is only an issue because the state and federal government are mixed in with being single, married, divorced, jointly married etc for tax purposes.
Somehow, some way, the status of me being single, married or divorced has an intricate effect on me tax wise and a bunch of other things entrenched at the local, state and federal levels. But the states DID murk their way into this act of matrimony and homosexual marriage in every state in the union was a FELONY in 1868 so by then it was too late. How this came about I don't know but we can least look back that far and probably further back in the late 1700s if someone has some law books handy.
that's not going to keep people from suing, being sued and discriminated against on the religious side. It's a HUGE mess. How did that work out for the bakery lady? or the photographer?
how does life, liberty or property equal marriage? not just gay marriage. Marriage for anyone?
Also, when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So I am guessing you are going to sit there and tell me that they wrote this amendment they were going to allow same sex marriage - then throw them in prison after saying "I do" ?
Lastly, the words of the constitution do not grant unlimited flexibility. If we want to change the 14th amendment or any amendment to the Constitution then the people need to step up and work with their own states and legislatures (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) to do this. This is what the amendment process is for.
If judges can change laws to fit their "interpretation" of what the original writers meant then we no longer govern ourselves but are at the mercy of judges to tell govern for us.
When i refer to states rights, I mean the PEOPLE of the state deciding what is a deemed "a right". As I have been trying to say though, in my first post, marriage was never a right (until SCOTUS declared it to be) it was always a PRIVILEGE granted to by the states (the status constituents who are represented by their local representatives).
So based on what you said - if the constitution limits the powers of the government and our rights do not come from the government then how do you feel about the supreme court saying that all 50 states (and thus all united states citizens because they cannot use their rights to vote on local state level matters) have to recognize same sex couples? If the government cannot grant a citizen a right then how come they JUST DID??????
So now we get down to the meat here. Thanks so much for bringing it up. Issues of race, ethnicity, national origin, or gender are all real and provable human characteristics which are innate and immutable. I believe that homosexuality is a behavior that is learned and changeable, instead of inborn. If that were not true then I wouldn't be able to read stories of many people, people of no faith even, who have abandoned the lifestyle. Many celebrities who are homosexual have shared their sexual abuse stories when they were young and some have even left the lifestyle after realizing it was wrong. You asked why I feel differently about these, so there it is. But of course we won't be able to talk about this in a real cordial way because people in general here want to just flame and call names instead of actually discussing the issue.
Regardless of what I believe or you though, should a federal court get to decide that for all people for states? If they can make a ruling based on we believe or feel then what's to stop them from ruling on other issues that are based on feelings? That's what I agreed, in part at least, with what scalia said in his dissent. He talks about the majority ruling based on man's view (or the justices view) of the world instead of what is currently law.
Another issue that I take with this as another side reason is that regardless of what the womens movement tell us or what they would have us believe or how much some people would love for us to believe and accept that we are all just 'genderless' there are obvious falsehoods from those tenants. Something that is without a doubt best for children are a mom and a dad. All female and male innate and immutable traits necessary for child rearing cannot be copied or simulated from a two female or two males parents.
As hard as the 'male' or 'female' of the same sex couple wants to be or act like the other sex he or she will not be able to because some innate abilities they just don't possess. Thus, the consequences of child rearing from same sex couples become a problem for me. If you don't think this makes a difference look at all the statistics - from physical, physiological and mental health and including the heightened probabilities of drug use, suicide, school drop out rates, wedlock births and crime - if you just take the father out of the equation. If there is no father, whether the father is absent whether is in jail, just doesn't come around or whatever then these statistics show an alarming effect on children. Having two women trying to raise a child mimics correctly the absence of a father - thus "think of children" in this case really does apply I think.
So you aren't concerned about being being sued, fined and jailed for so called "hate speech"? If a person of faith speaks out against gay marriage and the government reprimands that person - then that is the government interfering.. and if you are so naive to think that scenario isn't coming - then I have a nice little bridge to sell you.
And Yes, i do believe the state (and moreso the states constituents) should be allowed, at their discretion to make any type of marriage illegal. If the state doesn't have that discretion then you are ok with the massive federal government doing so? It is very clear that the federal government overstepped here.. even hearing the case in the first place.
What I am saying is is that marriage was never a fundamental right to begin with. For anyone. I know the Supreme Court made it one - yeah they got that wrong to because for one that's not their job. Anything not specifically left to the federal government should be left to the states. That's whats clear in the constitution that I see and read.
The 14th amendment doesn't say that we as a people have a right to marry. How can it? The federal government didn't create or conceive it and therefore it should be a matter of the people to figure that out. (states rights) As we all know though people think differently, have different views and beliefs and those should be enacted on through the legislative branch where they reside. Therefore each state ought to decide through their own democratic process. Some states, before this ruling already gave same sex marriage legal status...some didn't and I am fine with that. I have a problem with the court telling all 50 states what to do on an issue that it has no job(legally) meddling with in in the first place.
uhh The constitution doesn't talk about freedom of religion... in private... it is clear that people of faith and their beliefs should not be hindered in the public square. You do know that the 10 commandments are still in the courthouse right?
So now we have a right out of thin air that has been left to the states in every form since the founding of our country. The majority in this case have clearly decided that 'progress' should sustain and even override the Constitution. Scalia's dissent is very brute force and blunt...and rings true. Justice Roberts, on the other hand, seems to be confused. He, along with Scalia in this case basically says, the federal government has no say in an institution that it never conceived or created..etc etc and it should be left to the states - but then yesterday in the ACA ruling he basically is part of the majority that there should be a new right out of thin air based on word games. i.e. What does 'state' actually mean, instead of just abiding by what the Constitution says.
The 14th amendment does talk about equality for all but it doesn't express a fundamental right to marry, even for heterosexuals. In other words, since the states have been handing out marriage certificates, it has never had a legal right to do nor a fundamental religious or natural reason to do so but the states chose to do so to help solidify a taxpayer base that was grounded in strong family units - (i.e. families that stay in the state that shop, live, eat and contribute overall to their communities) and the states recognized that a stable family unit was beneficial (whether you agree or question the motives).
What's to stop three people from wanting to marry? I don't mean to be a conspirator but according to the language that I see there is nothing that can stop it. What about four? How in this world now are we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued? I am waiting now for the first lawsuit to appear about a pastor at a church won't marry Jane and Sally because of the pastors firmly held beliefs and the core doctrine and tenants of the church's faith. I see there is language talking about this balance in the ruling - but that's not going to stop people from getting targeted and sued.
This is the beginning of mish mash of lawsuits that the SCOTUS has brought on all of us. If they can make up rights out of thin air then there's nothing stopping them from doing it again...and again..and scalia calls the court egotistical..with an overreaching hubris...
Today and yesterday really and truly make me afraid of our freedoms moving forward.
and who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors? and would privacy advocates prevail to keep this from ever entering the market? what would keep someone from just putting gloves on so it cant read the pulse on your hand?
Re:Apple Developer Program now all inclusive
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 4, Informative
uhh. the license provides you with pre-releases of the updates (like as of now) for mac osx and ios before the public release so your apps will work with any updates changes to any of the devices mentioned in the keynote. it also allows you to have access to all of the sessions if you werent able to make it to WWDC. If you are able to make it (you cant go unless you arent a developer, unless you get a special invite) you get one on one time with developers in the session labs to look over your code, help with bugs and in other technical help you might have. You also get the developer videos as well as access to the apple developer forums.
You also get two technical support incidents with actual apple engineers that will go through your code, look at bugs with you, offer suggestions/help.feedback/ and help you fix your problem. Obviously this would be something worthwhile in case you've exhausted all avenues of technical support from the web or from other colleagues.
It also includes the ability to sell your apps on the apple store. Sure, you could do it but how are you going to get the visibility you need to get your app noticed if it is not in the app store? How are you going to set up the payment system/networking/server maintenance/etc/etc so that you accept all major credit cards and get all that secure for people to buy your app? (assuming you have enough traffic to even warrant such as set up)
Apple Developer Program now all inclusive
on
WWDC 2015 Roundup
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The apple developer program is now all in one instead of paying a separate license or Mac OSX, iOS and Safari. This is good news and makes sense. It was kinda pointless to have a separate license for all these common features between devices/hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait - why are they allowing them to offer at least 10 Mbps when Broadband is now 25? Why not... ya know... force them to at least offer ...uhh 25!!!?????
Why have all the news stations and online articles only mention New Orleans when the entire gulf coast of Mississippi faced the storm head on and was obliterated into nothing in addition to storm surge? New Orleans simply suffered from water surge - at the fault of the city being at or below sea level. The eye of the storm hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast - not New Orleans. So while New Orleans got some storm surge and a little wind...the gulf coast got both and more than plenty of it. But no one seems to remember that part.
Thats where the eye of the storm went over. Gulfport/Biloxi was completely destroyed but lets keep posting information about just New Orleans because.. ya know.
thats from "Back to the Future" when Marty (Michael J Fox) first meets Doc at his house and tells him he is from the future. Doc asks him who the president will be in 1985.
If you have a family and that is more important to you than work, i.e. you want to be a husband/father/wife/mother first, you want to work to live instead of live to work, you care about your health and well-being, hate office politics (despite Bezos' claim to avoid red tap and politics, it is clear that things like Organization Level Review and Anytime Feedback Tool are clearly motivated and created simply for favorites and politics) then Amazon is not for you.
As a side note, with a wife and 4 children I am surprised he hasn't gotten divorce papers.
Most companies that value their employees understand the need for downtime, relaxation, family obligations and a flexible work schedule. It is clear that the only thing Amazon cares about is employees that are working..and working...at whatever cost. If you are not ok with that then you are not a 'Super star' , regardless of how good you can code or solve problems.
So again if you are not into the idea of pleasing your employer above anything else - then Amazon is not for you. It is clear that the "kind of company that amazon wants to be" is a company filled with people with no other life or personal committments and void of health issues (or family members that are ill). Again, since Bezos has a rather large family - it's amazing that things like 'paid maternity leave' doesn't exist at Amazon.
And then this quote, "he(Bezos), was able to envision a new kind of workplace: fluid but tough, with employees staying only a short time and employers demanding the maximum". So it appears that you really aren't supposed to retire at amazon. Work a little while - then leave. So if retiring at a company with 401k and stock options racked up (or with any kind of pension) is what you seek - then Amazon is not for you. If Amazon is not in it for the long haul with its employees then why should the employees return any kind of favors?
but there is loads of crap in the bottle - loads of SUGAR. Lots and lots of it. and the fizz that everyone likes eats away at your enamel. So yeah.. it is bad crap.
if thats the only place you are going to go then you might be missing out on a lot of talent because not everyone had the chance to go to or lived near an 'elite' university or didn't have the money to go. Talent/Motivation/Creativity does not come from college. Better Educated? If you are hiring software developers half of the courses in college have absolutely nothing to do with software development. Prepared? Prepared for what? The real world? working in a business? No one can prepare for that unless you get out there and DO IT and get good at it. Nothing in college prepares you for the real world environment if you are just going to classrooms
We need to get out of the mindset that going to college = smart, intelligent, motivated, talented..etc etc. A piece of paper from any college, elite or not doesn't mean squat.
NO ONE is complaining about lack of women in plumbing and brick laying and no one is complaining about lack of men in nursing, home health care, etc etc. So obviously this is a 'tug at the hearts strings' of politics...,..and for no other reason.
A strong example of their downfall are the online courses offered via iTunesU. If you want to be an iOS developer, the fact that you can watch ALL the lectures and get ALL the assignments and then converse with others doing the same thing for help/tips/hints/issues for FREE is astonishing. You don't get Stanford credit but in the end you learn. That's where I got my start.
The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman??
NO NO NO NO. The Founding Fathers did not create the Supreme Court to assure of a living document. The Founding Fathers provided a way in the Constitution for people to amend as it as we "evolve" and "progress". If we truly have evolved then we should have no problem ratifying the constitution and going through that process. This is how we change the constitution. Leaving if up to 9 judges to decided and help us evolve was not what the Founding Fathers intended or wanted -
I am not sure if you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I am saying, yes, marriage , the forming of bonding between two people was formed and defined by people long before this country was founded - but as matter of state recognition - the states get to decide who to recognize(not the federal government). Now why do marriages need recognition by the state? Good question. I wish even the states would have gotten out of that business - in this case with something so innate, so immutable, so fundamental as a union between two people. In fact, this issue probably is only an issue because the state and federal government are mixed in with being single, married, divorced, jointly married etc for tax purposes.
Somehow, some way, the status of me being single, married or divorced has an intricate effect on me tax wise and a bunch of other things entrenched at the local, state and federal levels. But the states DID murk their way into this act of matrimony and homosexual marriage in every state in the union was a FELONY in 1868 so by then it was too late. How this came about I don't know but we can least look back that far and probably further back in the late 1700s if someone has some law books handy.
that's not going to keep people from suing, being sued and discriminated against on the religious side. It's a HUGE mess. How did that work out for the bakery lady? or the photographer?
how does life, liberty or property equal marriage? not just gay marriage. Marriage for anyone?
Also, when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So I am guessing you are going to sit there and tell me that they wrote this amendment they were going to allow same sex marriage - then throw them in prison after saying "I do" ?
Lastly, the words of the constitution do not grant unlimited flexibility. If we want to change the 14th amendment or any amendment to the Constitution then the people need to step up and work with their own states and legislatures (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) to do this. This is what the amendment process is for.
If judges can change laws to fit their "interpretation" of what the original writers meant then we no longer govern ourselves but are at the mercy of judges to tell govern for us.
When i refer to states rights, I mean the PEOPLE of the state deciding what is a deemed "a right". As I have been trying to say though, in my first post, marriage was never a right (until SCOTUS declared it to be) it was always a PRIVILEGE granted to by the states (the status constituents who are represented by their local representatives).
So based on what you said - if the constitution limits the powers of the government and our rights do not come from the government then how do you feel about the supreme court saying that all 50 states (and thus all united states citizens because they cannot use their rights to vote on local state level matters) have to recognize same sex couples? If the government cannot grant a citizen a right then how come they JUST DID??????
So now we get down to the meat here. Thanks so much for bringing it up. Issues of race, ethnicity, national origin, or gender are all real and provable human characteristics which are innate and immutable. I believe that homosexuality is a behavior that is learned and changeable, instead of inborn. If that were not true then I wouldn't be able to read stories of many people, people of no faith even, who have abandoned the lifestyle. Many celebrities who are homosexual have shared their sexual abuse stories when they were young and some have even left the lifestyle after realizing it was wrong. You asked why I feel differently about these, so there it is. But of course we won't be able to talk about this in a real cordial way because people in general here want to just flame and call names instead of actually discussing the issue.
Regardless of what I believe or you though, should a federal court get to decide that for all people for states? If they can make a ruling based on we believe or feel then what's to stop them from ruling on other issues that are based on feelings? That's what I agreed, in part at least, with what scalia said in his dissent. He talks about the majority ruling based on man's view (or the justices view) of the world instead of what is currently law.
Another issue that I take with this as another side reason is that regardless of what the womens movement tell us or what they would have us believe or how much some people would love for us to believe and accept that we are all just 'genderless' there are obvious falsehoods from those tenants. Something that is without a doubt best for children are a mom and a dad. All female and male innate and immutable traits necessary for child rearing cannot be copied or simulated from a two female or two males parents.
As hard as the 'male' or 'female' of the same sex couple wants to be or act like the other sex he or she will not be able to because some innate abilities they just don't possess. Thus, the consequences of child rearing from same sex couples become a problem for me. If you don't think this makes a difference look at all the statistics - from physical, physiological and mental health and including the heightened probabilities of drug use, suicide, school drop out rates, wedlock births and crime - if you just take the father out of the equation. If there is no father, whether the father is absent whether is in jail, just doesn't come around or whatever then these statistics show an alarming effect on children. Having two women trying to raise a child mimics correctly the absence of a father - thus "think of children" in this case really does apply I think.
So you aren't concerned about being being sued, fined and jailed for so called "hate speech"? If a person of faith speaks out against gay marriage and the government reprimands that person - then that is the government interfering.. and if you are so naive to think that scenario isn't coming - then I have a nice little bridge to sell you.
And Yes, i do believe the state (and moreso the states constituents) should be allowed, at their discretion to make any type of marriage illegal. If the state doesn't have that discretion then you are ok with the massive federal government doing so? It is very clear that the federal government overstepped here.. even hearing the case in the first place.
I am not sure that I follow - define religious extremists. What person that you have heard of ever say they want to behead infidels??
What I am saying is is that marriage was never a fundamental right to begin with. For anyone. I know the Supreme Court made it one - yeah they got that wrong to because for one that's not their job. Anything not specifically left to the federal government should be left to the states. That's whats clear in the constitution that I see and read.
The 14th amendment doesn't say that we as a people have a right to marry. How can it? The federal government didn't create or conceive it and therefore it should be a matter of the people to figure that out. (states rights) As we all know though people think differently, have different views and beliefs and those should be enacted on through the legislative branch where they reside. Therefore each state ought to decide through their own democratic process. Some states, before this ruling already gave same sex marriage legal status...some didn't and I am fine with that. I have a problem with the court telling all 50 states what to do on an issue that it has no job(legally) meddling with in in the first place.
uhh The constitution doesn't talk about freedom of religion ... in private... it is clear that people of faith and their beliefs should not be hindered in the public square. You do know that the 10 commandments are still in the courthouse right?
So now we have a right out of thin air that has been left to the states in every form since the founding of our country. The majority in this case have clearly decided that 'progress' should sustain and even override the Constitution. Scalia's dissent is very brute force and blunt ...and rings true. Justice Roberts, on the other hand, seems to be confused. He, along with Scalia in this case basically says, the federal government has no say in an institution that it never conceived or created..etc etc and it should be left to the states - but then yesterday in the ACA ruling he basically is part of the majority that there should be a new right out of thin air based on word games. i.e. What does 'state' actually mean, instead of just abiding by what the Constitution says.
The 14th amendment does talk about equality for all but it doesn't express a fundamental right to marry, even for heterosexuals. In other words, since the states have been handing out marriage certificates, it has never had a legal right to do nor a fundamental religious or natural reason to do so but the states chose to do so to help solidify a taxpayer base that was grounded in strong family units - (i.e. families that stay in the state that shop, live, eat and contribute overall to their communities) and the states recognized that a stable family unit was beneficial (whether you agree or question the motives).
What's to stop three people from wanting to marry? I don't mean to be a conspirator but according to the language that I see there is nothing that can stop it. What about four? How in this world now are we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued? I am waiting now for the first lawsuit to appear about a pastor at a church won't marry Jane and Sally because of the pastors firmly held beliefs and the core doctrine and tenants of the church's faith. I see there is language talking about this balance in the ruling - but that's not going to stop people from getting targeted and sued.
This is the beginning of mish mash of lawsuits that the SCOTUS has brought on all of us. If they can make up rights out of thin air then there's nothing stopping them from doing it again...and again..and scalia calls the court egotistical..with an overreaching hubris...
Today and yesterday really and truly make me afraid of our freedoms moving forward.
haha. I am in Florida, no inspection stickers! FTW
and who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?
and would privacy advocates prevail to keep this from ever entering the market?
what would keep someone from just putting gloves on so it cant read the pulse on your hand?
uhh. the license provides you with pre-releases of the updates (like as of now) for mac osx and ios before the public release so your apps will work with any updates changes to any of the devices mentioned in the keynote. it also allows you to have access to all of the sessions if you werent able to make it to WWDC. If you are able to make it (you cant go unless you arent a developer, unless you get a special invite) you get one on one time with developers in the session labs to look over your code, help with bugs and in other technical help you might have. You also get the developer videos as well as access to the apple developer forums.
You also get two technical support incidents with actual apple engineers that will go through your code, look at bugs with you, offer suggestions/help.feedback/ and help you fix your problem. Obviously this would be something worthwhile in case you've exhausted all avenues of technical support from the web or from other colleagues.
It also includes the ability to sell your apps on the apple store. Sure, you could do it but how are you going to get the visibility you need to get your app noticed if it is not in the app store? How are you going to set up the payment system/networking/server maintenance/etc/etc so that you accept all major credit cards and get all that secure for people to buy your app? (assuming you have enough traffic to even warrant such as set up)
The apple developer program is now all in one instead of paying a separate license or Mac OSX, iOS and Safari. This is good news and makes sense. It was kinda pointless to have a separate license for all these common features between devices/hardware.