Yes, but you have to buy Office for Mac, and for a decently high price. The google maps app would probably be free, or maybe a dollar, so not nearly as much profit, unless they get good ad revenue, which Apple probably wouldn't allow.
Yes, the creators of a show can say whatever they want and be protected by the 1st, but the owners of the company airing the show have to worry about being sued. Let's say that they aired the unedited show and some extremists followed through on threats they had made before the show was aired. People could make a case (not necessarily a good one, but since when has having a good case been needed to win over a court?) that it was the studio's fault for not acting on threats they knew about beforehand. Then they could lose a fair bit of money in the lawsuit, even if they won, (not to mention the income they'd lose if south parks creators died and thus stopped creating) so they're doing this to save their own asses.
Also, I'm pretty sure the studio gets to air pretty much whatever they want that isn't regulated by the FCC.
I see the point you're making about needing a computer of some sort, and agree that most software only works on windows (which is why I personally use windows), but I don't agree that that leads to the necessity of breaking up Microsoft. If we declare Microsoft a monopoly and require it to split into different companies, I feel like it'll end up breaking on use lines. You can't really break windows into two companies effectively, because doing so would end up with a loss of function. I guess you could give two groups the same source code or something, but I think that would just end with confusion and issues when they either end up with the same product in the end or with two completely incompatible programs, which would just make people unhappy. So it seems like they would probably break the internet division, the office division, the OS division etc apart, which wouldn't really solve the problem, because programs would still only work with windows, office would still be office etc. The internet division would probably die and no one would attend the funeral. But windows would continue to dominate.
If you can suggest a good way to split the OS into multiple companies effectively, I'd be willing to listen, but I don't see it going over well.
And keep in mind that the "average consumer" doesn't really care that much, he/she just wants something that works. So if we do somehow split the OS without losing function but creating better competition they might be more confused, but will be happy. If we fail at that, they'll be confused and angry that we ruined something that (at least kind of) worked.
I'd also like to hear your car analogy. That sounds kind of snippy, but I mean it in all earnestness, I'm curious.
How many people do you know who own a Mac? I don't know a single one.
Really? You don't know a single person who owns a Mac? Do you know any college students? Or people who do video editing? Or music editing? Or who are alive? Yes, of course a lot more people have PCs, but I find it very hard to believe that you don't know one person with a Mac.
And your argument can be turned right around on you. Ipods have huge market share. Steve Jobs claimed it at about about 75%, so is that a monopoly now? No, I can just buy a Zune. So why can't I just buy a Mac or linux computer instead of a Windows PC? Because people don't know the options are there? Or because when I walk into a store it's easier to find the Windows computers? Ipod displays are way bigger than those for any of the other music players you listed above, and it's way easier to find accessories for them, and you have to use it with Apple software (adding music to my android phone doesn't take any special software; just windows explorer). So if MS is a problem, why aren't Ipods? Where do we draw this line?
If anyone needs to be broken up, it's MS, for collusion between their application software (esp. MS Office) and their OS, and their browser, and now they're trying to take over search from Google with "Bing".
Really? MS needs to be broken up for bundling software? What about Apple for only allowing their software to run on their hardware? Why do they get to stop psystar from selling their clones, but MS can't put their browser on their OS? Also, Office doesn't come bundled with the OS usually, except as a trial, so you're eventually have to choose to buy it (though obviously the trial version and ubiquity encourages that purchase).
I know market share plays a big role here (as in Apple doesn't have enough for it to matter) but they're way worse about their terms of use and forcing people to use their stuff than anyone else.
I totally agree. If people just start looking at each others data instead of verifying it, a lot of mistakes (or fraudulent data) will never be caught.
Also, I have to wonder what the timeline for releasing data is. My research is funded with government money (NIH and NSF) but it can take years to get enough data to make a worthwhile paper. If I have to release my data before then it will hurt my ability to publish papers without getting scooped. You could end up with a whole closet industry of people just data mining the data others have had to disclose. And, here's the main catch, if you don't have to release results you haven't yet reported on, the problem isn't solved at all because I could just choose to "not yet publish" any results that don't agree with what I want to say. Nothing says I ever have to publish results I get, so why wouldn't I just sit on them?
Not that sitting on data just because it doesn't agree is a good thing, but it happens. And plenty of good data goes unpublished (experiments fail, uninteresting results happen, journals don't publish negative results very often etc) so what about that data? Overall this law isn't going to help anything, and will just cause issues.
That's what we had too. I was an RA, I used it, my friends who worked for computer services used it, everyone did. The administration would crack down on people using limewire etc., but they basically tolerated DC++ because it was internal, so they never got in trouble for it. At one RA training someone asked the head of the computer system if DC++ was legal. He just stared at him for a minute, said "I have no idea what you're talking about," and walked out of the room. We gave that RA crap for a while, but it pretty much summed up the administration's opinion on the subject.
I had friends off campus who just put up their own networks with shared drives instead. If you were friends with them, you got read/write access to those drives and could add your music to it or take what you wanted. Again, no one who wasn't part of it could tell, aside from the high bandwidth use, so no one cared.
It's like the rebirth of the know-nothing party, but without the racial idiocy
How are previously opened emails not in electronic storage? Are they electronic? Yes. Are they being stored? Yes. Thereby electronic storage. And how does the previously opened or unopened even come into play here? When I open my mail (and keep it in a filing cabinet in my house) is it any less mine than it was before I opened it? Would they still need a search warrant to find it, or is it not in "hard storage" because I opened it? I don't understand why people thing that storing things in the cloud makes them less mine (legally). When I rent a storage space barn they property I put in it is still mine, so if I'm using online servers to store information, that information should still be mine.
At the same time, I'm glad to see Google, the EFF, and such coming to help Yahoo. Obviously it's because they don't want precedent set, but still it's nice to see them playing nice.
I've worked a number of places (sales, factory, desk jobs etc.) and at all of them I've seen people spend way less time doing "work" than the amount of time they were at the job site. Some examples:
At the pet store I worked at in high school we would work hard before opening and after closing so that when the store was open if there were no customers we could just stand there because our tasks were done
At the factory I worked in, I spent a lot of time personally just standing around because I wasn't qualified to set up machines or work on them alone (I didn't work there long) so if someone else didn't need an assistant, I got paid to sweep the floor or some such thing. Also, on that note, they definitely could have set up the machines faster, but overtime was the name of the game so they dragged their feet
When I worked in an office people often didn't do things efficiently. Some of it was messing around (email etc) some of it was work sanctioned (long pointless meetings) and a lot of it was general inefficiency (many people only know how to do about 2 things in excel, and a lot of those excel functions could be replaced by a python script to do it for them
Now I work in a lab and teach (I've always been a biologist, just not always employed as one) and my lab mates give me crap for the little amount of time I actually spend in the lab. They'll be here from 8 in the morning to 7 or 8 at night, and I'm usually here 9-5. The difference is that I multitask, while they tend to do one thing at a time. So if I have some PCR or a gel or something running, I'll start doing something else at the same time, staggering them so that I'm always doing something and, hopefully, when I finish with one thing, the next is about ready to be worked on. Or I'll read, write, or grade papers, things like that. I end up getting more work done in my 9 hours on site than they do in their 11 or 12. Luckily my boss has figured it out and lets me basically come and go as I please, as long as I give him good results, but everyone gets so worked up about face time that there have been multiple complaints.
I say, as long as your work is getting done, who cares how long it takes. If you're programming 15 hours a week and getting it done, more power to you. Just because someone else takes longer to do the same task doesn't make them any more valuable as an employee. Actually, assuming you're more efficient than them, it makes you more valuable, in my eyes.
Yeah, but the problem is that not all the taxpayers agree on what is in their interest. If we did all agree, I think this would already be the system, but we don't. Instead you have Joe over there and John over here fighting about everything themselves, and Mr. Politician on Capitol Hill hearing both of them, as well as hearing what some big rich corporation has to say, and having to make some sort of decision. But Mr. Politician doesn't really know anything about the subject at hand (nor do Joe or John, probably, and the corporation is only giving one side of it) so he makes a decision based on the info he's given. More money (from the corporation) means more ability to convince Mr. Politician that they're right and Joe or John (or both) are wrong.
If people (including politicians) were better informed and could agree about what's right, this wouldn't be an issue. But we aren't, and we can't.
And, even if the usability were the same, Apple has marketing that the open world usually lacks. I know that Android phones are getting marketed well (at least Droid on TV and Nexus One online) but they've got nothing on Apple commercials and hype. That'll hurt the open market.
Add to that the possibility of having multiple competing open devices (droid vs eris vs nexus one etc) while close has one, and the sales of any one open device will be lower than the one closed device, again making things look bad. And Apple has the jump here, and name recognition.
As much as I support the open movement and even this particular (vaporous) device, there are some issues.
Agreed. But I still think the added complexity of having a strange shape adds more to the efficiency of trees than minor heliotropism of leaves. I mean, on big things (think oak tree) the leaves just get bandied about in the wind and don't do heliotropism, but the fact that they're not a plane makes them catch a lot more light. Phototropism is big too, but I feel we already have a parallel to that given that we put our solar panels on the roof and such in areas without shade.
They should work with Erik Demaine. He's does origami, he already works at MIT, and he's a genius. It'd be perfect.
I don't think they're talking about sunflowers either. The fact that the flowers move doesn't help with gathering sunlight for energy. For that, it'd have to be the green leaf surfaces moving. But plants are not (generally) flat. Sure a given leaf is flat, but the whole tree (or bush or whatever) is this big complicated structure so that basically wherever the sun hits, it hits a part of the plant doing photosynthesis. Tracking can help too, but efficiency is greatly increased by having a more complex surface shape.
Given that there are plenty of bacteria that can do this (including those that find oxygen toxic) it's not surprising that multicellular creatures have evolved to take advantage of low oxygen environments. There are probably numerous, people just haven't been looking hard enough. Plus, when you store your samples in places with air, you get serious sampling bias for things that like air.
Sure you see more MS fanboys today than in the 80s. Apple too. That, I think, is just market penetration. More people with computers (and yes, Xboxes too) = more people with little information spouting off what they think (myself possibly included).
There are also a disconcerting number of people who seem to think Microsoft invented computers. They've never known anything else.
This is part of the problem, people think MS if the one and only and that Apple is some upstart (including Apple fans). That makes MS evil and Apple cool. But really, think back to when Windows 3.1 and 95 came out. It was "Windows this," and "MS that." "They're so great, finally an OS that everyone likes and everyone can use" etc. People still harken back to 95/98 as times when MS was doing it right, as opposed to ME, Vista, and 7 (probably with some merit).
I guess I was just trying to say these things are cyclical. First it was IBM is the man, and we need to fight the man. Now Microsoft is in charge, so they must be evil (I mean, yes, they do evil things too, but if they were small and evil people would care less). Next, Google, Apple or someone else will take over the market and go from being cool to being evil. Just give it time.
Just because a book is regarded as great literature doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it. Same goes for movies; you look at the AFI lists and Citizen Kane is always at the top, but I hate that movie. Doesn't mean it isn't a great movie, just that I don't like it.
Also, a lot of these people might not be the best judges. People who think the Harry Potter and Twilight books are great reads should remember that the classics are on a different level. Don't get me wrong, I like Harry Potter too, but it just isn't the same type of book as Ethan Frome or The Great Gatsby
On another note, the grammar in some of the reviews is terrible. Doesn't give a lot of faith into their abilities as literature reviewers.
It's not a matter of if Apple will pass Microsoft now, but when. Google's also making a run at it, but they've got a lot further to go.
The question is, when Apple passes Microsoft, who will become the new cool company? Remember back when Microsoft was young and hip? Now everyone hates them (okay not everyone, but it is cool to rip on them now and again). If Apple does overtake Microsoft, it seems likely the same thing will happen to them.
And, if Apple does take over the market, how hard are they going to be hit by antitrust suits? If Microsoft isn't allowed to bundle IE with Windows (in Europe) I feel like someone might take issue with Apple only letting their software be on their hardware. Maybe not, but it'll be interesting to see.
No way is Apple going to be able to take on Google in search. Bing failed and Microsoft has a lot more power than Apple. People will just end up using the google website instead.
Or, alternatively, they'll start saying it's a feature and that they don't need a good search engine anyway.
I agree with your comment about the mouth, but not with "nothing uncanny about it." It creeps me out a fair amount. I don't understand why we can't just have robots that look like robots and people that look like people. R2-D2 wasn't humanoid, wasn't creepy, and was still completely trustworthy.
I agree that it would be great to search the market online (I tried before I got my Eris and was pretty mad when I couldn't) but at the same time it's not a deal breaker. I've never had any issues getting apps that I want (assuming they're available) now that I have the phone. I'm also not sure the point that fewer people are paying for apps on android than iphones, did they look at the number of free vs paid apps (I didn't). Most of the apps I want are free, so why would I pay for one?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you have to buy Office for Mac, and for a decently high price. The google maps app would probably be free, or maybe a dollar, so not nearly as much profit, unless they get good ad revenue, which Apple probably wouldn't allow.
Yes, the creators of a show can say whatever they want and be protected by the 1st, but the owners of the company airing the show have to worry about being sued. Let's say that they aired the unedited show and some extremists followed through on threats they had made before the show was aired. People could make a case (not necessarily a good one, but since when has having a good case been needed to win over a court?) that it was the studio's fault for not acting on threats they knew about beforehand. Then they could lose a fair bit of money in the lawsuit, even if they won, (not to mention the income they'd lose if south parks creators died and thus stopped creating) so they're doing this to save their own asses.
Also, I'm pretty sure the studio gets to air pretty much whatever they want that isn't regulated by the FCC.
I see the point you're making about needing a computer of some sort, and agree that most software only works on windows (which is why I personally use windows), but I don't agree that that leads to the necessity of breaking up Microsoft. If we declare Microsoft a monopoly and require it to split into different companies, I feel like it'll end up breaking on use lines. You can't really break windows into two companies effectively, because doing so would end up with a loss of function. I guess you could give two groups the same source code or something, but I think that would just end with confusion and issues when they either end up with the same product in the end or with two completely incompatible programs, which would just make people unhappy. So it seems like they would probably break the internet division, the office division, the OS division etc apart, which wouldn't really solve the problem, because programs would still only work with windows, office would still be office etc. The internet division would probably die and no one would attend the funeral. But windows would continue to dominate.
If you can suggest a good way to split the OS into multiple companies effectively, I'd be willing to listen, but I don't see it going over well.
And keep in mind that the "average consumer" doesn't really care that much, he/she just wants something that works. So if we do somehow split the OS without losing function but creating better competition they might be more confused, but will be happy. If we fail at that, they'll be confused and angry that we ruined something that (at least kind of) worked.
I'd also like to hear your car analogy. That sounds kind of snippy, but I mean it in all earnestness, I'm curious.
How many people do you know who own a Mac? I don't know a single one.
Really? You don't know a single person who owns a Mac? Do you know any college students? Or people who do video editing? Or music editing? Or who are alive? Yes, of course a lot more people have PCs, but I find it very hard to believe that you don't know one person with a Mac.
And your argument can be turned right around on you. Ipods have huge market share. Steve Jobs claimed it at about about 75%, so is that a monopoly now? No, I can just buy a Zune. So why can't I just buy a Mac or linux computer instead of a Windows PC? Because people don't know the options are there? Or because when I walk into a store it's easier to find the Windows computers? Ipod displays are way bigger than those for any of the other music players you listed above, and it's way easier to find accessories for them, and you have to use it with Apple software (adding music to my android phone doesn't take any special software; just windows explorer). So if MS is a problem, why aren't Ipods? Where do we draw this line?
If anyone needs to be broken up, it's MS, for collusion between their application software (esp. MS Office) and their OS, and their browser, and now they're trying to take over search from Google with "Bing".
Really? MS needs to be broken up for bundling software? What about Apple for only allowing their software to run on their hardware? Why do they get to stop psystar from selling their clones, but MS can't put their browser on their OS? Also, Office doesn't come bundled with the OS usually, except as a trial, so you're eventually have to choose to buy it (though obviously the trial version and ubiquity encourages that purchase).
I know market share plays a big role here (as in Apple doesn't have enough for it to matter) but they're way worse about their terms of use and forcing people to use their stuff than anyone else.
I totally agree. If people just start looking at each others data instead of verifying it, a lot of mistakes (or fraudulent data) will never be caught.
Also, I have to wonder what the timeline for releasing data is. My research is funded with government money (NIH and NSF) but it can take years to get enough data to make a worthwhile paper. If I have to release my data before then it will hurt my ability to publish papers without getting scooped. You could end up with a whole closet industry of people just data mining the data others have had to disclose. And, here's the main catch, if you don't have to release results you haven't yet reported on, the problem isn't solved at all because I could just choose to "not yet publish" any results that don't agree with what I want to say. Nothing says I ever have to publish results I get, so why wouldn't I just sit on them?
Not that sitting on data just because it doesn't agree is a good thing, but it happens. And plenty of good data goes unpublished (experiments fail, uninteresting results happen, journals don't publish negative results very often etc) so what about that data? Overall this law isn't going to help anything, and will just cause issues.
That's what we had too. I was an RA, I used it, my friends who worked for computer services used it, everyone did. The administration would crack down on people using limewire etc., but they basically tolerated DC++ because it was internal, so they never got in trouble for it. At one RA training someone asked the head of the computer system if DC++ was legal. He just stared at him for a minute, said "I have no idea what you're talking about," and walked out of the room. We gave that RA crap for a while, but it pretty much summed up the administration's opinion on the subject.
I had friends off campus who just put up their own networks with shared drives instead. If you were friends with them, you got read/write access to those drives and could add your music to it or take what you wanted. Again, no one who wasn't part of it could tell, aside from the high bandwidth use, so no one cared.
It's like the rebirth of the know-nothing party, but without the racial idiocy
How are previously opened emails not in electronic storage? Are they electronic? Yes. Are they being stored? Yes. Thereby electronic storage. And how does the previously opened or unopened even come into play here? When I open my mail (and keep it in a filing cabinet in my house) is it any less mine than it was before I opened it? Would they still need a search warrant to find it, or is it not in "hard storage" because I opened it? I don't understand why people thing that storing things in the cloud makes them less mine (legally). When I rent a storage space barn they property I put in it is still mine, so if I'm using online servers to store information, that information should still be mine.
At the same time, I'm glad to see Google, the EFF, and such coming to help Yahoo. Obviously it's because they don't want precedent set, but still it's nice to see them playing nice.
In mother Russia, site clones you.
Don't worry, we didn't need that feature anyway.
I've worked a number of places (sales, factory, desk jobs etc.) and at all of them I've seen people spend way less time doing "work" than the amount of time they were at the job site. Some examples:
Now I work in a lab and teach (I've always been a biologist, just not always employed as one) and my lab mates give me crap for the little amount of time I actually spend in the lab. They'll be here from 8 in the morning to 7 or 8 at night, and I'm usually here 9-5. The difference is that I multitask, while they tend to do one thing at a time. So if I have some PCR or a gel or something running, I'll start doing something else at the same time, staggering them so that I'm always doing something and, hopefully, when I finish with one thing, the next is about ready to be worked on. Or I'll read, write, or grade papers, things like that. I end up getting more work done in my 9 hours on site than they do in their 11 or 12. Luckily my boss has figured it out and lets me basically come and go as I please, as long as I give him good results, but everyone gets so worked up about face time that there have been multiple complaints.
I say, as long as your work is getting done, who cares how long it takes. If you're programming 15 hours a week and getting it done, more power to you. Just because someone else takes longer to do the same task doesn't make them any more valuable as an employee. Actually, assuming you're more efficient than them, it makes you more valuable, in my eyes.
Yeah, but the problem is that not all the taxpayers agree on what is in their interest. If we did all agree, I think this would already be the system, but we don't. Instead you have Joe over there and John over here fighting about everything themselves, and Mr. Politician on Capitol Hill hearing both of them, as well as hearing what some big rich corporation has to say, and having to make some sort of decision. But Mr. Politician doesn't really know anything about the subject at hand (nor do Joe or John, probably, and the corporation is only giving one side of it) so he makes a decision based on the info he's given. More money (from the corporation) means more ability to convince Mr. Politician that they're right and Joe or John (or both) are wrong.
If people (including politicians) were better informed and could agree about what's right, this wouldn't be an issue. But we aren't, and we can't.
And, even if the usability were the same, Apple has marketing that the open world usually lacks. I know that Android phones are getting marketed well (at least Droid on TV and Nexus One online) but they've got nothing on Apple commercials and hype. That'll hurt the open market.
Add to that the possibility of having multiple competing open devices (droid vs eris vs nexus one etc) while close has one, and the sales of any one open device will be lower than the one closed device, again making things look bad. And Apple has the jump here, and name recognition.
As much as I support the open movement and even this particular (vaporous) device, there are some issues.
Agreed. But I still think the added complexity of having a strange shape adds more to the efficiency of trees than minor heliotropism of leaves. I mean, on big things (think oak tree) the leaves just get bandied about in the wind and don't do heliotropism, but the fact that they're not a plane makes them catch a lot more light. Phototropism is big too, but I feel we already have a parallel to that given that we put our solar panels on the roof and such in areas without shade.
They should work with Erik Demaine. He's does origami, he already works at MIT, and he's a genius. It'd be perfect.
I don't think they're talking about sunflowers either. The fact that the flowers move doesn't help with gathering sunlight for energy. For that, it'd have to be the green leaf surfaces moving. But plants are not (generally) flat. Sure a given leaf is flat, but the whole tree (or bush or whatever) is this big complicated structure so that basically wherever the sun hits, it hits a part of the plant doing photosynthesis. Tracking can help too, but efficiency is greatly increased by having a more complex surface shape.
Given that there are plenty of bacteria that can do this (including those that find oxygen toxic) it's not surprising that multicellular creatures have evolved to take advantage of low oxygen environments. There are probably numerous, people just haven't been looking hard enough. Plus, when you store your samples in places with air, you get serious sampling bias for things that like air.
Sure you see more MS fanboys today than in the 80s. Apple too. That, I think, is just market penetration. More people with computers (and yes, Xboxes too) = more people with little information spouting off what they think (myself possibly included).
There are also a disconcerting number of people who seem to think Microsoft invented computers. They've never known anything else.
This is part of the problem, people think MS if the one and only and that Apple is some upstart (including Apple fans). That makes MS evil and Apple cool. But really, think back to when Windows 3.1 and 95 came out. It was "Windows this," and "MS that." "They're so great, finally an OS that everyone likes and everyone can use" etc. People still harken back to 95/98 as times when MS was doing it right, as opposed to ME, Vista, and 7 (probably with some merit).
I guess I was just trying to say these things are cyclical. First it was IBM is the man, and we need to fight the man. Now Microsoft is in charge, so they must be evil (I mean, yes, they do evil things too, but if they were small and evil people would care less). Next, Google, Apple or someone else will take over the market and go from being cool to being evil. Just give it time.
Just because a book is regarded as great literature doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it. Same goes for movies; you look at the AFI lists and Citizen Kane is always at the top, but I hate that movie. Doesn't mean it isn't a great movie, just that I don't like it.
Also, a lot of these people might not be the best judges. People who think the Harry Potter and Twilight books are great reads should remember that the classics are on a different level. Don't get me wrong, I like Harry Potter too, but it just isn't the same type of book as Ethan Frome or The Great Gatsby
On another note, the grammar in some of the reviews is terrible. Doesn't give a lot of faith into their abilities as literature reviewers.
It's not a matter of if Apple will pass Microsoft now, but when. Google's also making a run at it, but they've got a lot further to go.
The question is, when Apple passes Microsoft, who will become the new cool company? Remember back when Microsoft was young and hip? Now everyone hates them (okay not everyone, but it is cool to rip on them now and again). If Apple does overtake Microsoft, it seems likely the same thing will happen to them.
And, if Apple does take over the market, how hard are they going to be hit by antitrust suits? If Microsoft isn't allowed to bundle IE with Windows (in Europe) I feel like someone might take issue with Apple only letting their software be on their hardware. Maybe not, but it'll be interesting to see.
In other news: Tang sales plummet.
No way is Apple going to be able to take on Google in search. Bing failed and Microsoft has a lot more power than Apple. People will just end up using the google website instead. Or, alternatively, they'll start saying it's a feature and that they don't need a good search engine anyway.
I agree with your comment about the mouth, but not with "nothing uncanny about it." It creeps me out a fair amount. I don't understand why we can't just have robots that look like robots and people that look like people. R2-D2 wasn't humanoid, wasn't creepy, and was still completely trustworthy.
I agree that it would be great to search the market online (I tried before I got my Eris and was pretty mad when I couldn't) but at the same time it's not a deal breaker. I've never had any issues getting apps that I want (assuming they're available) now that I have the phone. I'm also not sure the point that fewer people are paying for apps on android than iphones, did they look at the number of free vs paid apps (I didn't). Most of the apps I want are free, so why would I pay for one?
And here I was always told that I was "randomly chosen" for increased security screening.