Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just sharing my own experience with seeing that sort of behavior being the norm, rather than being atypical. I quite agree that it doesn't mean it's right or a good idea.
It seems like award shows should be free to chose whatever they like as criteria to base awards on - just as the public can feel free to ignore award shows that choose to slide into irrelevancy... not justice department needed I should say.
Perhaps for a privately-run, individually-operated awards show, but the Academy is a trade organization representing the interests of its members, and those members come from competing (almost entirely incumbent) companies across the film industry. As such, its members run the risk of engaging in collusion if they take action that prevents competition, most obviously if they were to prevent competition from a competitor who isn't part of their ranks.
Towards that end, when Spielberg more or less suggested that the Academy redefine what a "film" is to exclude the new generation of streaming studios like Netflix, he was—perhaps without realizing it—effectively suggesting that the incumbents collude to exclude the new guys from the benefits of one of the industry's biggest marketing opportunities each year. The DOJ basically retorted with, "We don't care if you redefine 'film', they're still your competitors and you still can't collude against them".
While that angle didn't occur to me when I first heard about Spielberg's remarks a few weeks ago, I can't say that I disagree with the DOJ's reasoning in this case.
How anyone would give a 3rd party service the login details to their bank account is completely beyond me
Practically every bank, retirement account service, or online budgeting tool I've seen allows you to link your (other) bank account(s)...by providing your username and password to that other bank/service. The premise being sold to the customer is that each one wants to be the one-stop shop where you can do all of your banking/planning, so each ones wants to display all of your financial data in one place. Of course, I'm sure they also love knowing who's out-competing them for your business, how much money people have that they haven't managed to capture for themselves, and any number of other metrics.
F* (pronounced "F star") was the grade my university would give to students who failed a course, but not just for any failure. The F* grade was reserved for those who cheated on an exam, plagiarized papers, or were otherwise caught engaging in unethical behavior. It was a scarlet letter that went on their official transcript, forever branding them as someone you couldn't trust (or as someone who wasn't competent enough to NOT get caught, depending on your outlook).
As a result, it's kinda hard for me to shake the feeling that there's something untrustworthy about this software.
Glad someone commented on this. I was aware of it, but it bears repeating with each ambiguous usage of "table" here at Slashdot, simply to prevent confusion from spreading. Ideally, we'd simply use alternative wording.
C. I'm a member of Netflix's DVD service. It's not nearly as bad as their streaming selection, but it's not great, either. A sample of the DVD's I'd like to get but they have permanently unavailable: "Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)", "Gung Ho (1986)", "Flash Gordon (1980)", "Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996)". My video store had all of these. If they didn't have something, they'd buy it so that I could rent it.
Again, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Netflix isn’t a rental service. They aren’t selling access to a deep and comprehensive catalog. It’s instead supposed to have an ever-churning supply of entertainment for a subscription fee, most of which you won’t care for, but enough of which you’ll like at any given time to make it worth your while. But if you look at actual rental services... - Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978): available to rent for $2.99 - Gung Ho (1986): available to rent for $2.99 - Flash Gordon (1980): admittedly not available to rent, but you can buy it for just $8.99 - Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996): available for free on YouTube
I obviously can’t speak towards the particulars of your local video store, but I can say with certainty that there’s no way its catalog was anywhere near as deep or had nearly as many high quality movies as what you can find today via streaming. Even if 90% of iTunes’ content happened to be crap, that’d still be 6.5K high quality films, which is more than you could actually display in any retail setting.
I miss video stores. I miss them almost daily. Streaming has no selection at all.
Quite the contrary. In order of film selection size, from least to greatest (based on the latest numbers I could find in a quick search), here's how the various services stack up (unless otherwise noted, all of the below are streaming services):
Even if you're doing the apples-to-oranges comparison of Netflix subscription vs. video store rentals, Netflix has the better selection by a wide margin, but once you start comparing today's video rental streaming services against the video store rental services of yesteryear, you're talking about orders of magnitude more films being available today. Not only that, but you can instantly rent a movie from any of the aforementioned services for less than the cost that you were paying at Blockbuster 20 years ago, which just goes to show how horrible the situation back then really was.
* You may see mention of Blockbuster stores having 8,000-10,000 films. That's either the 9,000-ish that their now-defunct streaming service had or the number of cassettes/discs they had in inventory (most of which would have been in the stacks of new releases that lined the walls of every store), not the number of unique titles to choose from. The numbers in the list above reflect the best estimates I could find for the actual number of unique titles available at any given store.
** The only numbers I could find were 7K at launch (i.e. several years ago) and 20K as an estimate provided by an executive for what they expected to have in their catalog by the middle of 2018. I went with 20K, since I figure it's closest to the actual number, but I wanted to be sure to disclose that uncertainty.
Generally, yes, it's as safe as any other raw meat dish (e.g. carpaccio, sushi/sashimi, etc.). Provided it's prepared in a sanitary manner from cows that are free of parasites, the likelihood of contracting something is incredibly low.
As the OP said, the concern with ground beef is that you're taking all of the bacteria that landed on the exterior of the cut during the shipping and handling processes up to that point and then pushing that bacteria into the interior. As a result, you need to cook ground meat through-and-through to be sure that it's safe for consumption.
In contrast, tartar should be made from meat that hasn't been exposed (i.e. it was kept clean or they cut away the potentially-contaminated exterior before mincing the clean interior), so if you're comfortable with the notion of eating the interior of a rare steak, you really shouldn't have any reservations about eating steak tartar, at least from a food safety perspective.
Most of these ISAs have had repayment terms that go FAR beyond 3 years. Think more like 10 or 15 years. Even if the person were to take a lower paying job for the first X years, it wouldn't help them at all if they received a bonus at year X if X is anything less than the repayment term. They'd instead need to forgo higher pay for the full 10-15 years (or more), at which point you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone fresh out of school willing to lock themselves in for that long.
Mentioning or discussing something controversial and/or different from one's opinion is not (necessarily) trolling.
(I wish some/. moderators would learn this.)
While I agree with your point, I don’t see the relevance here. I didn’t even read past the headline before posting, so I have no idea if they agreed or disagreed with my opinion on the subject. It’s still trolling to beat this dead horse on/. in a summary.
"or cause to be made, printed, or published [...]" would seem to eliminate any contention on that basis. Besides which, it's their platform from end-to-end. While there may be questions regarding which link in the chain of events is the actual act of "publishing", there's no doubt that they're the ones doing it.
Sorry, allow me quote the very next sentence from the above-linked document. I left it out previously for the sake of brevity since I figured no one would try to split hairs over it, but clearly I was wrong:
Such unlawful activity includes “[s]electing media or locations for advertising the sale or rental of dwellings which deny a particular segment of the housing market information about housing opportunities because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” 24 C.F.R. 100.75(c)(3).
So, actually, it does say something about the circulation of ads.
Thanks for finding that. I was wondering how 6M people could have used less data in several months than some of us can go through by ourselves. I had figured the rollout was a bust with a number like that, so I was confused by the glowing review in the summary. Increasing the number by a factor of 1000 makes it a LOT more believable.
Actually, re-reading that last point of mine, I know what I was getting at, but I got it wrong when I typed it up. REALLY wrong. Obviously not a lawyer.
So, to correct myself: it's illegal to deny someone housing on the basis of race/religion/gender/etc., regardless of if you've posted an ad or not. Likewise, it's illegal regardless of whether you do so verbally or in a written form.
The point I was trying—but failed woefully—to get at is that there's nothing stopping you from offering a room to a specific person, even if you met that person through an organization that is discriminatory. There's nothing about offering it to them that is denying the housing to others on a discriminatory basis. Rather, it's being denied to others because they lack the personal relationship you two already have, which is an acceptable reason for excluding them. That said, posting an ad for a roommate at your organization's HQ but nowhere else would be illegal, since the act of doing so inherently discriminates against the people who are not welcome in your organization.
Hopefully those corrections and clarifications help. Sorry for the gross inaccuracies in my initial post.
If someone misuses the advertising tools on a platform to break the law, wouldn't that person/company be responsible for breaking the law?
Yup. But that doesn't absolve anyone else of the legal responsibilities they may have.
Why would facebook be liable for having a wide range of advertising options available to people selling an enormous range of things, in which housing is a tiny percentage.
Because the law specifically includes the companies printing the ads. It's assumed that people will break/be ignorant of the law, so the law went a step further and placed a legal obligation on publishers running housing ads to abide by the same non-discriminatory terms. If you're a publisher who wants to run housing ads, them's the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't run housing ads (or other ads with similar conditions, such as job postings, financial offerings, etc.) and you won't be on the hook.
This is akin to going after google because someone sent a hate email from gmail
That analogy is so far off-base it's hard to know where to start. Setting aside the fact that hate mail isn't illegal in the US, the more important distinction is that e-mail in no way resembles the sorts of "notices, statements, and advertisements" covered by the Fair Housing Act. The FHA does nothing to prevent you from privately offering housing to someone on a discriminatory basis. For instance, if you want to privately offer your spare bedroom to someone you met through church/Black Panthers/Boy Scouts/KKK, the FHA isn't going to force you to advertise the room publicly instead. E-mail—which only goes to the individuals you specify—behaves more like a private conversation than as an advertisement, so it wouldn't be covered.
1. It is unlawful to make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(a), (f)(1); 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(1), (3); 24 C.F.R. 100.60(a); 24 C.F.R. 100.70(b); 24 C.F.R. 100.202(a).
2. It is unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(b), (f)(2); 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(2); 24 C.F.R. 100.65(a); 24 C.F.R. 100.70(b); 24 C.F.R. 100.202(b).
So, as expected, it's illegal to place the ads. But then it goes on with...
3. It is unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability, or that indicates an intention to make such a distinction. 42 U.S.C. 3604(c); 24 C.F.R. 100.75(a), (b), (c)(1).
All of which is to say (and going back to your knife analogy), Facebook is no more allowed to publish illegal housing ads than a switchblade manufacturer is allowed to sell switchblades in my state. If someone with a switchblade goes on a murder spree, the manufacturer likely won't be on the hook for the murder, but they will be pursued for the crime of having sold an illegal weapon. Likewise, while Facebook isn't on the hook for the poster's crime, they are on the hook for their own crime of unlawfully printing a discriminatory ad.
The 5s might still receive updates, but how many current 5s owners are the original owners of that device?
*raises hand*
I'm still using my same iPhone 5s from 2013. I even just updated to the latest version of iOS earlier this week. The battery has never been replaced (iFixit sells a kit for $30, but I haven't bothered with it), so its charge only lasts about a day with light usage at this point. In every other regard, however, it's still doing well. It's slower than the newer devices in our household, as you'd expect, but its performance is surprisingly decent considering it's coming up on 6 years old. My previous two smartphones felt significantly more sluggish after far less time: my iPhone 3G lasted me just 2 years before its performance was rubbish, and my iPhone 4 made it just a hair further to 3 years. This one still feels snappy compared to how those two felt when I replaced them.
I do intend to upgrade this year, and I have the money set aside to do so, but the same was true last year and the year before, so we'll see what actually happens.
Why would nerds—Apple fanboys or not—sign up? We already have RSS clients configured to our tastes and preferences. I see no reason to pay a middleman $10/mo. for a small subset of the things that I can already get for free, just as easily, directly from the source.
This has nothing to do with privacy. This is about price transparency.
It's about how prices are displayed to the user before they sign up for a subscription. Apple requires App Store developers to disclose subscription prices in prominently displayed, plainly written text before the user is ever prompted with the confirmation dialog. In contrast, what Apple itself is doing is showing no pricing info at all until the user reaches the confirmation dialog. The user will still see the amount, but they won't see it until much later than they would in the workflow of any other app in the App Store. And while Apple isn't legally or contractually held to the same standard to which they hold App Store developers, it's a bad look for a company to engage in sliminess that they wouldn't allow of others.
Hopefully they fix the screen in response to the bad PR, because fixing it is the right thing to do, but we'll see what happens.
Are you suggesting that a closed platform attempting to lock down access to an open platform is in some way better than a platform that is closed through-and-through? If so, you’ve got some twisted priorities. The former is nearly always a bigger threat to openness than the latter will ever be.
You also seem to be unaware that Apple News has been out for several years, given your choice of tense.
Not really, no. AOL presented the open Web as a set of gated channels under their control, which is an even worse subversion of how the Web is supposed to operate than what either AMP or Instant Articles is doing. Apple News isn’t presenting Web-based content at all. Again, it’s a parallel system.
Hold up. While all three of Google AMP, Facebook Instant Articles, and Apple News seek to commoditize content creators by—to varying degrees—reducing the obviousness of content attribution, causing content creators to lose control of their content and how it's displayed, and eliminating a direct interaction between content creators and their users, Apple News is different in one key way: it doesn't operate on the Web.
Unlike AMP and Instant Articles, which operate via the Web while subverting and perverting the way that the Web is supposed to operate—as an open system of links allowing the democratization of content creation and publication, with content creators being able to directly reach users—Apple News is an entirely separate, parallel system apart from the Web. While both the Web and Apple News operate over the Internet, Apple News is no more a part of the Web, let alone contributing to the "warping of hyperlinks", than broadcast TV signals are (not) a part of the Web.
Slashdot Mirror
Christianity never had a reformation.
The Reformers would like to have a word with you.
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just sharing my own experience with seeing that sort of behavior being the norm, rather than being atypical. I quite agree that it doesn't mean it's right or a good idea.
It seems like award shows should be free to chose whatever they like as criteria to base awards on - just as the public can feel free to ignore award shows that choose to slide into irrelevancy... not justice department needed I should say.
Perhaps for a privately-run, individually-operated awards show, but the Academy is a trade organization representing the interests of its members, and those members come from competing (almost entirely incumbent) companies across the film industry. As such, its members run the risk of engaging in collusion if they take action that prevents competition, most obviously if they were to prevent competition from a competitor who isn't part of their ranks.
Towards that end, when Spielberg more or less suggested that the Academy redefine what a "film" is to exclude the new generation of streaming studios like Netflix, he was—perhaps without realizing it—effectively suggesting that the incumbents collude to exclude the new guys from the benefits of one of the industry's biggest marketing opportunities each year. The DOJ basically retorted with, "We don't care if you redefine 'film', they're still your competitors and you still can't collude against them".
While that angle didn't occur to me when I first heard about Spielberg's remarks a few weeks ago, I can't say that I disagree with the DOJ's reasoning in this case.
How anyone would give a 3rd party service the login details to their bank account is completely beyond me
Practically every bank, retirement account service, or online budgeting tool I've seen allows you to link your (other) bank account(s)...by providing your username and password to that other bank/service. The premise being sold to the customer is that each one wants to be the one-stop shop where you can do all of your banking/planning, so each ones wants to display all of your financial data in one place. Of course, I'm sure they also love knowing who's out-competing them for your business, how much money people have that they haven't managed to capture for themselves, and any number of other metrics.
F* (pronounced "F star") was the grade my university would give to students who failed a course, but not just for any failure. The F* grade was reserved for those who cheated on an exam, plagiarized papers, or were otherwise caught engaging in unethical behavior. It was a scarlet letter that went on their official transcript, forever branding them as someone you couldn't trust (or as someone who wasn't competent enough to NOT get caught, depending on your outlook).
As a result, it's kinda hard for me to shake the feeling that there's something untrustworthy about this software.
Glad someone commented on this. I was aware of it, but it bears repeating with each ambiguous usage of "table" here at Slashdot, simply to prevent confusion from spreading. Ideally, we'd simply use alternative wording.
C. I'm a member of Netflix's DVD service. It's not nearly as bad as their streaming selection, but it's not great, either. A sample of the DVD's I'd like to get but they have permanently unavailable: "Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)", "Gung Ho (1986)", "Flash Gordon (1980)", "Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996)". My video store had all of these. If they didn't have something, they'd buy it so that I could rent it.
Again, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Netflix isn’t a rental service. They aren’t selling access to a deep and comprehensive catalog. It’s instead supposed to have an ever-churning supply of entertainment for a subscription fee, most of which you won’t care for, but enough of which you’ll like at any given time to make it worth your while. But if you look at actual rental services...
- Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978): available to rent for $2.99
- Gung Ho (1986): available to rent for $2.99
- Flash Gordon (1980): admittedly not available to rent, but you can buy it for just $8.99
- Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996): available for free on YouTube
I obviously can’t speak towards the particulars of your local video store, but I can say with certainty that there’s no way its catalog was anywhere near as deep or had nearly as many high quality movies as what you can find today via streaming. Even if 90% of iTunes’ content happened to be crap, that’d still be 6.5K high quality films, which is more than you could actually display in any retail setting.
I miss video stores. I miss them almost daily. Streaming has no selection at all.
Quite the contrary. In order of film selection size, from least to greatest (based on the latest numbers I could find in a quick search), here's how the various services stack up (unless otherwise noted, all of the below are streaming services):
Blockbuster (retail): 500-1K*
HBO: 815
Hulu: 2.3K
Netflix: 3.8K
Amazon Prime: 17.5K
Vudu: 18K
Redbox On Demand: 20K**
iTunes Store: 65K
Netflix (DVD): Over 100K
Even if you're doing the apples-to-oranges comparison of Netflix subscription vs. video store rentals, Netflix has the better selection by a wide margin, but once you start comparing today's video rental streaming services against the video store rental services of yesteryear, you're talking about orders of magnitude more films being available today. Not only that, but you can instantly rent a movie from any of the aforementioned services for less than the cost that you were paying at Blockbuster 20 years ago, which just goes to show how horrible the situation back then really was.
* You may see mention of Blockbuster stores having 8,000-10,000 films. That's either the 9,000-ish that their now-defunct streaming service had or the number of cassettes/discs they had in inventory (most of which would have been in the stacks of new releases that lined the walls of every store), not the number of unique titles to choose from. The numbers in the list above reflect the best estimates I could find for the actual number of unique titles available at any given store.
** The only numbers I could find were 7K at launch (i.e. several years ago) and 20K as an estimate provided by an executive for what they expected to have in their catalog by the middle of 2018. I went with 20K, since I figure it's closest to the actual number, but I wanted to be sure to disclose that uncertainty.
Generally, yes, it's as safe as any other raw meat dish (e.g. carpaccio, sushi/sashimi, etc.). Provided it's prepared in a sanitary manner from cows that are free of parasites, the likelihood of contracting something is incredibly low.
As the OP said, the concern with ground beef is that you're taking all of the bacteria that landed on the exterior of the cut during the shipping and handling processes up to that point and then pushing that bacteria into the interior. As a result, you need to cook ground meat through-and-through to be sure that it's safe for consumption.
In contrast, tartar should be made from meat that hasn't been exposed (i.e. it was kept clean or they cut away the potentially-contaminated exterior before mincing the clean interior), so if you're comfortable with the notion of eating the interior of a rare steak, you really shouldn't have any reservations about eating steak tartar, at least from a food safety perspective.
Most of these ISAs have had repayment terms that go FAR beyond 3 years. Think more like 10 or 15 years. Even if the person were to take a lower paying job for the first X years, it wouldn't help them at all if they received a bonus at year X if X is anything less than the repayment term. They'd instead need to forgo higher pay for the full 10-15 years (or more), at which point you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone fresh out of school willing to lock themselves in for that long.
Mentioning or discussing something controversial and/or different from one's opinion is not (necessarily) trolling.
(I wish some /. moderators would learn this.)
While I agree with your point, I don’t see the relevance here. I didn’t even read past the headline before posting, so I have no idea if they agreed or disagreed with my opinion on the subject. It’s still trolling to beat this dead horse on /. in a summary.
Wish we could downmod the article as Troll.
"or cause to be made, printed, or published [...]" would seem to eliminate any contention on that basis. Besides which, it's their platform from end-to-end. While there may be questions regarding which link in the chain of events is the actual act of "publishing", there's no doubt that they're the ones doing it.
Sorry, allow me quote the very next sentence from the above-linked document. I left it out previously for the sake of brevity since I figured no one would try to split hairs over it, but clearly I was wrong:
Such unlawful activity includes “[s]electing media or locations for advertising the sale or rental of dwellings which deny a particular segment of the housing market information about housing opportunities because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” 24 C.F.R. 100.75(c)(3).
So, actually, it does say something about the circulation of ads.
Thanks for finding that. I was wondering how 6M people could have used less data in several months than some of us can go through by ourselves. I had figured the rollout was a bust with a number like that, so I was confused by the glowing review in the summary. Increasing the number by a factor of 1000 makes it a LOT more believable.
Actually, re-reading that last point of mine, I know what I was getting at, but I got it wrong when I typed it up. REALLY wrong. Obviously not a lawyer.
So, to correct myself: it's illegal to deny someone housing on the basis of race/religion/gender/etc., regardless of if you've posted an ad or not. Likewise, it's illegal regardless of whether you do so verbally or in a written form.
The point I was trying—but failed woefully—to get at is that there's nothing stopping you from offering a room to a specific person, even if you met that person through an organization that is discriminatory. There's nothing about offering it to them that is denying the housing to others on a discriminatory basis. Rather, it's being denied to others because they lack the personal relationship you two already have, which is an acceptable reason for excluding them. That said, posting an ad for a roommate at your organization's HQ but nowhere else would be illegal, since the act of doing so inherently discriminates against the people who are not welcome in your organization.
Hopefully those corrections and clarifications help. Sorry for the gross inaccuracies in my initial post.
If someone misuses the advertising tools on a platform to break the law, wouldn't that person/company be responsible for breaking the law?
Yup. But that doesn't absolve anyone else of the legal responsibilities they may have.
Why would facebook be liable for having a wide range of advertising options available to people selling an enormous range of things, in which housing is a tiny percentage.
Because the law specifically includes the companies printing the ads. It's assumed that people will break/be ignorant of the law, so the law went a step further and placed a legal obligation on publishers running housing ads to abide by the same non-discriminatory terms. If you're a publisher who wants to run housing ads, them's the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't run housing ads (or other ads with similar conditions, such as job postings, financial offerings, etc.) and you won't be on the hook.
This is akin to going after google because someone sent a hate email from gmail
That analogy is so far off-base it's hard to know where to start. Setting aside the fact that hate mail isn't illegal in the US, the more important distinction is that e-mail in no way resembles the sorts of "notices, statements, and advertisements" covered by the Fair Housing Act. The FHA does nothing to prevent you from privately offering housing to someone on a discriminatory basis. For instance, if you want to privately offer your spare bedroom to someone you met through church/Black Panthers/Boy Scouts/KKK, the FHA isn't going to force you to advertise the room publicly instead. E-mail—which only goes to the individuals you specify—behaves more like a private conversation than as an advertisement, so it wouldn't be covered.
The people who place the discriminating ads are the ones who should be sued, not the advertising platform.
Actually, they should both be sued. From the charges themselves:
1. It is unlawful to make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(a), (f)(1); 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(1), (3); 24 C.F.R. 100.60(a); 24 C.F.R. 100.70(b); 24 C.F.R. 100.202(a).
2. It is unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(b), (f)(2); 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(2); 24 C.F.R. 100.65(a); 24 C.F.R. 100.70(b); 24 C.F.R. 100.202(b).
So, as expected, it's illegal to place the ads. But then it goes on with...
3. It is unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability, or that indicates an intention to make such a distinction. 42 U.S.C. 3604(c); 24 C.F.R. 100.75(a), (b), (c)(1).
All of which is to say (and going back to your knife analogy), Facebook is no more allowed to publish illegal housing ads than a switchblade manufacturer is allowed to sell switchblades in my state. If someone with a switchblade goes on a murder spree, the manufacturer likely won't be on the hook for the murder, but they will be pursued for the crime of having sold an illegal weapon. Likewise, while Facebook isn't on the hook for the poster's crime, they are on the hook for their own crime of unlawfully printing a discriminatory ad.
The 5s might still receive updates, but how many current 5s owners are the original owners of that device?
*raises hand*
I'm still using my same iPhone 5s from 2013. I even just updated to the latest version of iOS earlier this week. The battery has never been replaced (iFixit sells a kit for $30, but I haven't bothered with it), so its charge only lasts about a day with light usage at this point. In every other regard, however, it's still doing well. It's slower than the newer devices in our household, as you'd expect, but its performance is surprisingly decent considering it's coming up on 6 years old. My previous two smartphones felt significantly more sluggish after far less time: my iPhone 3G lasted me just 2 years before its performance was rubbish, and my iPhone 4 made it just a hair further to 3 years. This one still feels snappy compared to how those two felt when I replaced them.
I do intend to upgrade this year, and I have the money set aside to do so, but the same was true last year and the year before, so we'll see what actually happens.
Why would nerds—Apple fanboys or not—sign up? We already have RSS clients configured to our tastes and preferences. I see no reason to pay a middleman $10/mo. for a small subset of the things that I can already get for free, just as easily, directly from the source.
This has nothing to do with privacy. This is about price transparency.
It's about how prices are displayed to the user before they sign up for a subscription. Apple requires App Store developers to disclose subscription prices in prominently displayed, plainly written text before the user is ever prompted with the confirmation dialog. In contrast, what Apple itself is doing is showing no pricing info at all until the user reaches the confirmation dialog. The user will still see the amount, but they won't see it until much later than they would in the workflow of any other app in the App Store. And while Apple isn't legally or contractually held to the same standard to which they hold App Store developers, it's a bad look for a company to engage in sliminess that they wouldn't allow of others.
Hopefully they fix the screen in response to the bad PR, because fixing it is the right thing to do, but we'll see what happens.
Are you suggesting that a closed platform attempting to lock down access to an open platform is in some way better than a platform that is closed through-and-through? If so, you’ve got some twisted priorities. The former is nearly always a bigger threat to openness than the latter will ever be.
You also seem to be unaware that Apple News has been out for several years, given your choice of tense.
Not really, no. AOL presented the open Web as a set of gated channels under their control, which is an even worse subversion of how the Web is supposed to operate than what either AMP or Instant Articles is doing. Apple News isn’t presenting Web-based content at all. Again, it’s a parallel system.
Hold up. While all three of Google AMP, Facebook Instant Articles, and Apple News seek to commoditize content creators by—to varying degrees—reducing the obviousness of content attribution, causing content creators to lose control of their content and how it's displayed, and eliminating a direct interaction between content creators and their users, Apple News is different in one key way: it doesn't operate on the Web.
Unlike AMP and Instant Articles, which operate via the Web while subverting and perverting the way that the Web is supposed to operate—as an open system of links allowing the democratization of content creation and publication, with content creators being able to directly reach users—Apple News is an entirely separate, parallel system apart from the Web. While both the Web and Apple News operate over the Internet, Apple News is no more a part of the Web, let alone contributing to the "warping of hyperlinks", than broadcast TV signals are (not) a part of the Web.
As far as I could tell, that list of models was for a different set of patents related to Intel's modems.