The TSA guy making a low annual salary doesn't pocket half of the money that he finds, or splits it up with the rest of the low level employees?
Well, let's run some numbers.
$409,056.56 divided by about 450 airports is $909 per airport. We're talking about a year, so divide that by 365 and we're talking about an average of $2.49 per day per airport. Figure that an entry level security screen makes a little over $10 per hour and he's basically getting the equivalent of 15 minutes.
You make it sound like there wasn't good science coming out of the space program.
Here's sort of the problem.
The Space Shuttle was, in essence, a launchable space station. It supported up to seven astronauts in a shirt-sleeve environment for a few weeks. This is a good thing (and something that most shuttle bashers tend to forget). The problem is, what science can be done on the Space Shuttle that can't be done on ISS? In fact, ISS is better for some research because it stays up longer than the Shuttle.
Using the Shuttle to transport people to ISS is akin to using the giant SUV to drive down the block to the grocery store to pick up some milk.
it means that we're dependent upon the Russians to provide us with access to space.
Just to clarify, it means we are dependent upon the Russians to provide American astronauts access to the Internation Space Station. Somehow we recently managed to launch a rocket to Mars without Russia's assistance, so we can certainly access space without the Russians.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not real pleased about this, either. But spending the money to keep the Shuttle program alive is not a good solution. The better solution is to bite the bullet and either develop a less expensive way to do it or encourage private industry to come up with a better way and buy rides from them.
Remember that the last flight of the Apollo-series capsules was in 1975 and the first flight of the Space Shuttle was in 1981--six years. Somehow our nation was not crippled by a six-year departure from manned space flight.
I've never heard it referred to that way, either. I've always heard it referred to as Mock Turtleneck.
I believe a "turtleneck" is usually longer and is customarily folded, whereas a "mock turtleneck" is shorter and doesn't need to be folded. At least that seems to be the difference between the two in my wardrobe.
Android people tend to hate it when the iPod Touch or iPad are brought up and conflated with the iPhone (even though Apple people tend to view iPhone + iPad + iPod Touch as a single platform).
I'm not sure I'm an "Android person," but the reason I dislike it when it's brought up is because it doesn't matter all that much and it's more of a distraction.
Take Q3 2011 as an example. According to Gartner, there were 60 million Android phones shipped and 17 million iPhones shipped. "But this doesn't include iPod touches and iPads!" you shriek. Fair enough--let's include them.
According to Apple, they shipped 11 million iPads and 6.62 million iPods. Now let's assume, just for laughs, that all of those were iPod touches. That's right, Apple didn't sell a single iPod shuffle or iPod nano. That ups Apple's iOS sales to 35 million--more than double the iPhone reference. But it's still a little more than half the Android phone sales. And that's making a pretty big assumption about iPod touch sales.
Let's try to figure out Android tablet sales. According to IDC, Apple had about 61% of the market with 11 million iPads. Android had about 32%. Doing a little math, that means about 6 million Android tablets. So we have 66 million Android phone and tablet sales versus 28 million iPhone & iPad sales.
That's what I mean by a "distraction." They just use this to try to discredit the original report.
Yes, but you can't actually do iOS development on an iOS device. Read the description--he actually wants to do work with it.
My boss recently ran into this issue while traveling to Africa. He wanted to do some Javascript programming on the 20-some-odd hour flight. No WiFi, so he wanted to be able to do this locally. He tried to find iPad apps to do this, since we had an iPad in the office but he couldn't find anything.
So he bought a Xoom and loves it. He was able to edit Javascript files locally and access them from the browser. Do that with your iPad...
Really? The neighbors would ask my sisters to babysit and I'm pretty sure they got paid less than minimum wage.
But, I suppose, now-a-days you can't just get the kid from down the street. You have to hire an accredited, certified, and bonded child-care provider who has gone through appropriate background checks and has been trained in CPR and first-aid. Because, after all, who knows what could happen?
If we go to the theater, we usually end up with crappy parking. So a 1/4 mile hike, unless we get lucky.
Ewwww! Exercise!
That makes $40 for a couple, or close to $80 if you're bringing two kids.
Y'know, I think back to when I was a kid...
Now, my Dad wasn't much of a movie-goer. I remember him taking the whole family of six to the Drive-In once to see Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I was probably pre-school age, I don't remember it very well. When I was in school, I remember a buddy's mom dropping me and him off to see a movie--I think it was Born Free (but I don't think it was first run--I know it was a matinee). I remember going to see Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Three Musketeers, Logan's Run, Star Wars,, and probably some other movies that I don't remember without Mom & Dad. This was a long time ago, granted, but I don't remember too many Moms and Dads trailing along. In fact, I remember that we'd give kids grief the next day in school if they were seen at the movies "with their Mommies!"
But now-a-days, I see lots of parents dragging their kids--and vice-versa--to movies. I think that's where some of the behavior issues come in. Kid doesn't want to watch Black Swan or the like and act obnoxious. Mom & Dad are bored by Hop or the like and start checking their e-mail.
So what happened? Is there a reason you need to take your kids to a movie?
That has already been used to determine a price which is available to other customers. The non-discriminatory part of the obligation means Samsung (in this case) is required to offer that same price to Apple, i.e. not discriminate depending on the customer.
The people who are using these patents are all inside a particular group that share patents. So, as I said I above, if I want to use your patents, I have to let you use mine. All of the people using these patents agree this arrangement. All members of the group get value from using each others patents. There is no discrimination going on within the group.
Apple is the company that doesn't want to join the group and share it's patents. Which is perfectly fine--Apple has that right. But they cannot claim that they should receive the same benefits as those who share their patents. Those patents from other people have value and those are part of the "fee" for using the patents. If Apple does not want to contribute their patents, then they should have to pay the equivalent cash value.
For example, if I join the local supermarket's "grocery club," I give them something of value--namely information about me and my shopping habits. They, in return, give me a discount on the groceries that I buy. What you're saying is that you should be able to get the same discounts but you shouldn't have to join the "grocery club" and give them your personal information.
The patents that are being shared are part of the value that Samsung is receiving for it's patents. If Apple doesn't want to share, then it falls to Samsung to come up with a cash equivalent.
I might agree--the problem is, who defines fair and reasonable?
In this example, I've said that if you want to use my patents, I get to use your patents. Others have agreed to this, also, so I have a group that has said, "Yeah. I get to use your patents, you get to use my patents, that's fair and reasonable."
Now someone else comes along and says, "No! You don't get to use my patents but I get to use yours!" Is that fair?
Want to know one thing China lacks? The ability to grow food for its people. As of now, they are an exporter. Give it 10 years, and that isn't going to be the case.
Why not? You could have said the same thing about the US, but somehow we've managed to improve productivity. This is impossible for the Chinese?
If the US gives a middle finger to the world, the country can keep its population fed.
Assuming that the US continues to have a good climate for doing so. Of course, that assumes that the climate doesn't change. Changing climate would be inconvenient...
It was used as a prop in a movie. Nobody thinks that's real, like the whiskey and champagne they supposedly drink in the movies, it's just a prop.
For a prop, it's actually referred to by brand. FTFA:
[...] luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton accused Warner Bros of ignoring its instructions not to use a fake handbag in an airport scene in the Hangover II. In the scene, Alan (played by Zach Galifianakis) carries luggage marked LVM and warns another character “Careful, that is.. that is a Louis Vuitton.”
It would be one thing if it were a bag and the Louis Vuitton logo was not shown and they didn't have that line. Then it'd be a prop. But when you start having it be a particular brand and refer to that brand, it stops being just a simple prop.
Apple makes damn good money selling Macs, even though they have a small percentage of the total market for personal computers. I don't think anyone is saying that Apple is "Doomed" if they don't hold the majority share of tablet/phone/personal computer sales. If they do, they're idiots.
I like to continually point out to all fanbois on both sides that the company that sells the most hamburgers in the world is McDonalds. Does this mean that McDonald's burgers are better than anyone else's? I think you'd find very few people who'd agree with that statement.
While the competition is entertaining, I'll probably stick with my iPhone. Apple devotes a certain amount of time and effort into thinking through the whole widget, and I like that. This doesn't mean I denigrate Android as somehow being inferior, though. I've seen some pretty cool Android phones--nay, cooler than the iPhone!
If your concept of self-worth is based upon the brand of device you carry around, you should have bigger concerns than who wins the "Tablet Wars." Get thee to a shrink posthaste.
Slashdot Mirror
The TSA guy making a low annual salary doesn't pocket half of the money that he finds, or splits it up with the rest of the low level employees?
Well, let's run some numbers.
$409,056.56 divided by about 450 airports is $909 per airport. We're talking about a year, so divide that by 365 and we're talking about an average of $2.49 per day per airport. Figure that an entry level security screen makes a little over $10 per hour and he's basically getting the equivalent of 15 minutes.
Yup. These guys are makin' bank, I'll tell you.
You make it sound like there wasn't good science coming out of the space program.
Here's sort of the problem.
The Space Shuttle was, in essence, a launchable space station. It supported up to seven astronauts in a shirt-sleeve environment for a few weeks. This is a good thing (and something that most shuttle bashers tend to forget). The problem is, what science can be done on the Space Shuttle that can't be done on ISS? In fact, ISS is better for some research because it stays up longer than the Shuttle.
Using the Shuttle to transport people to ISS is akin to using the giant SUV to drive down the block to the grocery store to pick up some milk.
it means that we're dependent upon the Russians to provide us with access to space.
Just to clarify, it means we are dependent upon the Russians to provide American astronauts access to the Internation Space Station. Somehow we recently managed to launch a rocket to Mars without Russia's assistance, so we can certainly access space without the Russians.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not real pleased about this, either. But spending the money to keep the Shuttle program alive is not a good solution. The better solution is to bite the bullet and either develop a less expensive way to do it or encourage private industry to come up with a better way and buy rides from them.
Remember that the last flight of the Apollo-series capsules was in 1975 and the first flight of the Space Shuttle was in 1981--six years. Somehow our nation was not crippled by a six-year departure from manned space flight.
We are not in a space race with Russia anymore. If anything we should be sabotaging China's space program.
Remember that the Phobos-Grunt mission was carrying a Chinese satellite, YH-1.
We can't have them Chinese commies in orbit around the Red Planet!
Remember that you have to be closest--without going over--in order to win the galaxy.
Thus, since I think you're all over, I say that there is only 1 planet.
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.
Or, my personal favorite: Life is a monosyllabic morpheme consisting of a fronting diphthong followed by a labio-dental voiceless fricative.
Hell yeah! Throw Steve Jobs into prison!
Oh, wait... he's dead isn't he? I feel a conspiracy coming on...
I've never heard it referred to that way, either. I've always heard it referred to as Mock Turtleneck.
I believe a "turtleneck" is usually longer and is customarily folded, whereas a "mock turtleneck" is shorter and doesn't need to be folded. At least that seems to be the difference between the two in my wardrobe.
RIght. After ten years, your eyes fall out.
Android people tend to hate it when the iPod Touch or iPad are brought up and conflated with the iPhone (even though Apple people tend to view iPhone + iPad + iPod Touch as a single platform).
I'm not sure I'm an "Android person," but the reason I dislike it when it's brought up is because it doesn't matter all that much and it's more of a distraction.
Take Q3 2011 as an example. According to Gartner, there were 60 million Android phones shipped and 17 million iPhones shipped. "But this doesn't include iPod touches and iPads!" you shriek. Fair enough--let's include them.
According to Apple, they shipped 11 million iPads and 6.62 million iPods. Now let's assume, just for laughs, that all of those were iPod touches. That's right, Apple didn't sell a single iPod shuffle or iPod nano. That ups Apple's iOS sales to 35 million--more than double the iPhone reference. But it's still a little more than half the Android phone sales. And that's making a pretty big assumption about iPod touch sales.
Let's try to figure out Android tablet sales. According to IDC, Apple had about 61% of the market with 11 million iPads. Android had about 32%. Doing a little math, that means about 6 million Android tablets. So we have 66 million Android phone and tablet sales versus 28 million iPhone & iPad sales.
That's what I mean by a "distraction." They just use this to try to discredit the original report.
Name one thing Apple prevents you from doing on OS X [...] something that Apple EXPLICITLY PREVENTS YOU OR ANYONE FROM DOING.
Run a terminal server.
Yes, but you can't actually do iOS development on an iOS device. Read the description--he actually wants to do work with it.
My boss recently ran into this issue while traveling to Africa. He wanted to do some Javascript programming on the 20-some-odd hour flight. No WiFi, so he wanted to be able to do this locally. He tried to find iPad apps to do this, since we had an iPad in the office but he couldn't find anything.
So he bought a Xoom and loves it. He was able to edit Javascript files locally and access them from the browser. Do that with your iPad...
Playboy May 1979 Magazine
Since when does Playboy have articles?
Because a babysitter is as expensive.
Really? The neighbors would ask my sisters to babysit and I'm pretty sure they got paid less than minimum wage.
But, I suppose, now-a-days you can't just get the kid from down the street. You have to hire an accredited, certified, and bonded child-care provider who has gone through appropriate background checks and has been trained in CPR and first-aid. Because, after all, who knows what could happen?
"...we had to wait for the novelization! And then walk 10 miles barefoot to the bookstore! In the snow! Up hill! BOTH WAYS!"
If we go to the theater, we usually end up with crappy parking. So a 1/4 mile hike, unless we get lucky.
Ewwww! Exercise!
That makes $40 for a couple, or close to $80 if you're bringing two kids.
Y'know, I think back to when I was a kid...
Now, my Dad wasn't much of a movie-goer. I remember him taking the whole family of six to the Drive-In once to see Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I was probably pre-school age, I don't remember it very well. When I was in school, I remember a buddy's mom dropping me and him off to see a movie--I think it was Born Free (but I don't think it was first run--I know it was a matinee). I remember going to see Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Three Musketeers, Logan's Run, Star Wars,, and probably some other movies that I don't remember without Mom & Dad. This was a long time ago, granted, but I don't remember too many Moms and Dads trailing along. In fact, I remember that we'd give kids grief the next day in school if they were seen at the movies "with their Mommies!"
But now-a-days, I see lots of parents dragging their kids--and vice-versa--to movies. I think that's where some of the behavior issues come in. Kid doesn't want to watch Black Swan or the like and act obnoxious. Mom & Dad are bored by Hop or the like and start checking their e-mail.
So what happened? Is there a reason you need to take your kids to a movie?
Further on, you saw it in the theater, or you waited a few years for it to come out on VHS for rental.
You had VHS? LUXURY! We had to wait for it to come out on broadcast television, with all the naughty words dubbed out!
And you try and tell the young people of today that. They won't believe you. Now get the hell off my lawn.
That has already been used to determine a price which is available to other customers. The non-discriminatory part of the obligation means Samsung (in this case) is required to offer that same price to Apple, i.e. not discriminate depending on the customer.
The people who are using these patents are all inside a particular group that share patents. So, as I said I above, if I want to use your patents, I have to let you use mine. All of the people using these patents agree this arrangement. All members of the group get value from using each others patents. There is no discrimination going on within the group.
Apple is the company that doesn't want to join the group and share it's patents. Which is perfectly fine--Apple has that right. But they cannot claim that they should receive the same benefits as those who share their patents. Those patents from other people have value and those are part of the "fee" for using the patents. If Apple does not want to contribute their patents, then they should have to pay the equivalent cash value.
For example, if I join the local supermarket's "grocery club," I give them something of value--namely information about me and my shopping habits. They, in return, give me a discount on the groceries that I buy. What you're saying is that you should be able to get the same discounts but you shouldn't have to join the "grocery club" and give them your personal information.
The patents that are being shared are part of the value that Samsung is receiving for it's patents. If Apple doesn't want to share, then it falls to Samsung to come up with a cash equivalent.
I might agree--the problem is, who defines fair and reasonable?
In this example, I've said that if you want to use my patents, I get to use your patents. Others have agreed to this, also, so I have a group that has said, "Yeah. I get to use your patents, you get to use my patents, that's fair and reasonable."
Now someone else comes along and says, "No! You don't get to use my patents but I get to use yours!" Is that fair?
Want to know one thing China lacks? The ability to grow food for its people. As of now, they are an exporter. Give it 10 years, and that isn't going to be the case.
Why not? You could have said the same thing about the US, but somehow we've managed to improve productivity. This is impossible for the Chinese?
If the US gives a middle finger to the world, the country can keep its population fed.
Assuming that the US continues to have a good climate for doing so. Of course, that assumes that the climate doesn't change. Changing climate would be inconvenient...
It was used as a prop in a movie. Nobody thinks that's real, like the whiskey and champagne they supposedly drink in the movies, it's just a prop.
For a prop, it's actually referred to by brand. FTFA:
[...] luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton accused Warner Bros of ignoring its instructions not to use a fake handbag in an airport scene in the Hangover II. In the scene, Alan (played by Zach Galifianakis) carries luggage marked LVM and warns another character “Careful, that is.. that is a Louis Vuitton.”
It would be one thing if it were a bag and the Louis Vuitton logo was not shown and they didn't have that line. Then it'd be a prop. But when you start having it be a particular brand and refer to that brand, it stops being just a simple prop.
More than the iPhone 4S. FTFA:
Speaking of Germany, the Kantar data also revealed that the Samsung Galaxy S2 is the most popular smartphone there
Which means that the Samsung Galaxy S2 is selling more than the iPhone 4S.
Really, you gotta keep up with this stuff. Talking points become stale after awhile...
Actually, I think it was better the other way... :^D
I think you're reading too much into it.
Apple makes damn good money selling Macs, even though they have a small percentage of the total market for personal computers. I don't think anyone is saying that Apple is "Doomed" if they don't hold the majority share of tablet/phone/personal computer sales. If they do, they're idiots.
I like to continually point out to all fanbois on both sides that the company that sells the most hamburgers in the world is McDonalds. Does this mean that McDonald's burgers are better than anyone else's? I think you'd find very few people who'd agree with that statement.
While the competition is entertaining, I'll probably stick with my iPhone. Apple devotes a certain amount of time and effort into thinking through the whole widget, and I like that. This doesn't mean I denigrate Android as somehow being inferior, though. I've seen some pretty cool Android phones--nay, cooler than the iPhone!
If your concept of self-worth is based upon the brand of device you carry around, you should have bigger concerns than who wins the "Tablet Wars." Get thee to a shrink posthaste.
But look at any individual manufacturer, and that "All Android Phone" share is sliced into so many tiny pieces that Apple dwarfs them.
At least until Samsung comes along.
You can't play Angry Birds on it.