In a "pray I don't alter it any further" moment...
Unless they also have some rule that says the content must be at the same price they will undoubtedly need to alter it further to require that too otherwise I'm sure the content will be made available in the app...with a 30% markup to cover the Apple fee of course. This will result in nobody using the in-app purchase and everyone using the external method.
Can they display it on the receipt as "Apple Tax (30%)"? I would just love to see someone have the balls to place blame where it is due, here.
We do the same. During the Bush years, the GOP meme was "trust the government. It's unpatriotic to stand in the president's way". After Obama's election, but before he took office, that meme changed to "The president is out to push a socialist agenda and I hope the president fails", and these same people who were decrying dissent took a tactic of filibustering and obstructing every attempt at legislation, because they didn't want to give the other guy any victories.
As a side, when gawker got hacked, they had the one-way hash, and either no salt, or a known/guessable salt. Simple passwords have still been discovered, via a dictionary attack. So, you were right to put (potentially) in there.
Then they should base it on the pound, which of course is 96 Roman drams, which of course is 96 * 32 / 25 Greek drachma, which is of course 96* 32 / 25 * 6 obols, which is of course 96 * 32 / 25 * 6 * 12 grains of barley.
Or maybe, since measurements were originally based on important items of trade, we should modernize that a bit and standardize based on a dozen iPhones.
I can see your logic, but I also see many people who obsess when gas prices increase by 10 cents a gallon. They say $3.50 a gallon is price gouging. I couldn't imagine a US politician being willing to take the blame for gas getting above $4 per gallon.
Others had mentioned oil subsidies. Would you have a problem with Obama removing all oil subsidies and letting gas cost what it will? Even then, it wouldn't be a level playing field, because the oil companies have already built their infrastructure.
But there is also what economists call externalities. If there is a reasonable risk that CO2 contributes to global warming (even if it is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt), then what is the value of not having that risk? This is a hidden subsidy placed on oil companies. We are paying the cost for research into whether their product is causing harm, and may be spending more money to fix the harm, and, on top of that, will be spending more money to make sure that their industry fails gracefully, if necessary.
Not having an environmental policy is like saying that anybody can dump garbage in your yard. It's not the free market at work; it's vandalism.
Their goal is to get 1 million cars on the road. In a country with 300 million people, that is one third of one percent. Granted, a large percentage of the population consists of children, non-drivers, or people who, five years from now will still be driving the car they own today, but getting one third of one percent of the population to buy an expensive vehicle is not that unreasonable. The question is, will Obama actually try to make it happen?
Yep, shifting the money would produce probably over 10 million electrics by then. However, unless there's a groundswell of demand from the bottom, I wouldn't expect the government to jeopardize its cozy relationships with the industry.
And I'm sure that when gas hits $3.50 or $4 per gallon the GOP will do a pretty good job of convincing people that "Not subsidizing X" is exactly the same as "raising taxes on X".
Our college professors don't have Bachelors degrees in Education, but they are some of the best teachers in the world.
In some cases, yes. Science, in general, is having a problem, lately, in connecting with normal people. Never mind being able to explain complex subject matter to a room full of twelve year olds. So, yes, learning how to communicate with children, how to motivate them, and how to discipline them is very important in the elementary school and (let's face it) freshman high school levels. I would like to see a "fast track" program for experts in the field who don't want to have to sit through four years of school because half of the courses they took twenty years ago no longer "transfer", but teaching science to a room full of kids takes far more than just knowledge of science.
And a couple of other things (just to clarify). The Biology class for teachers did not have a special focus. (I.E., it wasn't "how to teach biology", or anything like that; it was just a plain old biology class, with less emphasis on controversial issues).
I took the "real" Biology class because it was a requirement when I switched from Education to Computer Science. Biology Teachers have to take the "dumbed down" biology class, and computer programmers have to take the "real" one.
I am curious if the attempt to strive toward HTML# compliance didn't result in more uniformity among them, however. I am trying not to fall into the trap of assuming that everything will become proprietary, but without an independent body saying "here's the standard, and here's where you are", then won't the compatibility problems get worse?
In my home state, "Education" is a college major. Someone who "only" has a PHd in biology would not be qualified to teach in High School, as they would need a Bachelor's in Education. I was an education major for about a year at my Alma-Mater, and, at the time, you had to pick a concentration:
One was early childhood education, dealing with grades K-5.
One for English and History
One for Art and Music
One for Math & Science Teachers. This program required a special version of Biology that didn't meet the same standards that science majors had to meet. In this class, I remember that the professor was very good, but he was very careful to avoid using the word "evolution". After changing majors, I took the real biology class where the same professor had no qualms about use of the word.
Now the part about actual scientists not being qualified to teach science may seem silly, but the program does cover a great deal of psychology and child behavior classes, since a great deal of the job is dealing with other people's kids, despite the fact that you have only slightly more authority than the janitor or cafeteria crew.
Or maybe we just have nothing worthy of their attention. If galactic travel is possible, we cannot assume it is cheap. We may be talking about groups spending generations in transit, just to find that they are now in some backwater planet, full of people who mostly just want to kill them and take their stuff, and, oh yeah, if they ever get back home, by then, the generations of separation may have caused just enough evolutionary differences to make them have difficulty mating with their own people.
But, on the bright side, they got some books, DVDs and blue jeans, and learned a little about how one culture lived before inventing extra-solar travel.
Or, they may be waiting until we have a work force technologically advanced enough to refine and create useful materials. (Take that ominously, if you wish).
Some times the slippery slope argument is valid, this is one of those cases. The argument that users shouldn't be able to find bittorrent results "too easily" is actually weaker than the argument that users* just shouldn't be able to find bittorrent results so the jump seems imminent.
* Except law enforcement, politicians and members of the MAFIAA of course.
How about the argument that users should be able to search for what they want, but Google should have the right to not suggest certain controversial searches?
By your reasoning, here is an entire list of things that Google is going to start censoring from their search results, any minute now.
Slashdot Mirror
In a "pray I don't alter it any further" moment...
Unless they also have some rule that says the content must be at the same price they will undoubtedly need to alter it further to require that too otherwise I'm sure the content will be made available in the app...with a 30% markup to cover the Apple fee of course. This will result in nobody using the in-app purchase and everyone using the external method.
Can they display it on the receipt as "Apple Tax (30%)"? I would just love to see someone have the balls to place blame where it is due, here.
They'll probably settle out of court.
Offer to give customers refunds.
And I'll get a $50 check like I did with the Paypal and CD Companies lawsuits.
Refunds or coupons? I would imagine the settlement would be "$10 off your next iPhone"
Can I just wear a hat with magnets in it? Or would that kind of be like stabbing yourself in the face and calling it acupuncture?
I suspect that some kind of homeopathic learning helmet will soon hit the market, pointing to this study as proof that "magnets make smart"
We do the same. During the Bush years, the GOP meme was "trust the government. It's unpatriotic to stand in the president's way". After Obama's election, but before he took office, that meme changed to "The president is out to push a socialist agenda and I hope the president fails", and these same people who were decrying dissent took a tactic of filibustering and obstructing every attempt at legislation, because they didn't want to give the other guy any victories.
Simple. The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
The more time I spend online, the more I am beginning to believe that statement needs an addendum:
The internet sees stupidity as content and makes backup copies
If by "since Obama was elected" you mean March 20th, 2010, then yes.
Not a philosophy major, but I have been struggling against that as well. Is there a definition of free will that differs from
First they came for the...and I did not speak up, for I was not a...
yada yada yada
And that is why people tend to ignore the problem. There are several ways to look at this scenario:
Someone doesn't get the proper warrant, and a "bad guy" is let off on a technicality.
or
The Feds broke the law, and the government had to intervene to protect a citizen's rights
or
Someone did something I disagree with and that makes them Hitler.
Can we please let the third argument die?
As a side, when gawker got hacked, they had the one-way hash, and either no salt, or a known/guessable salt. Simple passwords have still been discovered, via a dictionary attack. So, you were right to put (potentially) in there.
Then they should base it on the pound, which of course is 96 Roman drams, which of course is 96 * 32 / 25 Greek drachma, which is of course 96* 32 / 25 * 6 obols, which is of course 96 * 32 / 25 * 6 * 12 grains of barley.
Or maybe, since measurements were originally based on important items of trade, we should modernize that a bit and standardize based on a dozen iPhones.
Could they call them iPounds?
Interesting. I always wondered why people will drive all over town to save 10 cents per gallon on 10 gallons of gas.
I can see your logic, but I also see many people who obsess when gas prices increase by 10 cents a gallon. They say $3.50 a gallon is price gouging. I couldn't imagine a US politician being willing to take the blame for gas getting above $4 per gallon.
Others had mentioned oil subsidies. Would you have a problem with Obama removing all oil subsidies and letting gas cost what it will? Even then, it wouldn't be a level playing field, because the oil companies have already built their infrastructure.
But there is also what economists call externalities. If there is a reasonable risk that CO2 contributes to global warming (even if it is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt), then what is the value of not having that risk? This is a hidden subsidy placed on oil companies. We are paying the cost for research into whether their product is causing harm, and may be spending more money to fix the harm, and, on top of that, will be spending more money to make sure that their industry fails gracefully, if necessary.
Not having an environmental policy is like saying that anybody can dump garbage in your yard. It's not the free market at work; it's vandalism.
Their goal is to get 1 million cars on the road. In a country with 300 million people, that is one third of one percent. Granted, a large percentage of the population consists of children, non-drivers, or people who, five years from now will still be driving the car they own today, but getting one third of one percent of the population to buy an expensive vehicle is not that unreasonable. The question is, will Obama actually try to make it happen?
Where are they going to _park_ 1 million cars in, at, or near the white house?
As a Tennessean, I think it is doable. They just need four million concrete blocks.
Yep, shifting the money would produce probably over 10 million electrics by then. However, unless there's a groundswell of demand from the bottom, I wouldn't expect the government to jeopardize its cozy relationships with the industry.
And I'm sure that when gas hits $3.50 or $4 per gallon the GOP will do a pretty good job of convincing people that "Not subsidizing X" is exactly the same as "raising taxes on X".
Our college professors don't have Bachelors degrees in Education, but they are some of the best teachers in the world.
In some cases, yes. Science, in general, is having a problem, lately, in connecting with normal people. Never mind being able to explain complex subject matter to a room full of twelve year olds. So, yes, learning how to communicate with children, how to motivate them, and how to discipline them is very important in the elementary school and (let's face it) freshman high school levels. I would like to see a "fast track" program for experts in the field who don't want to have to sit through four years of school because half of the courses they took twenty years ago no longer "transfer", but teaching science to a room full of kids takes far more than just knowledge of science.
And a couple of other things (just to clarify). The Biology class for teachers did not have a special focus. (I.E., it wasn't "how to teach biology", or anything like that; it was just a plain old biology class, with less emphasis on controversial issues).
I took the "real" Biology class because it was a requirement when I switched from Education to Computer Science. Biology Teachers have to take the "dumbed down" biology class, and computer programmers have to take the "real" one.
I am curious if the attempt to strive toward HTML# compliance didn't result in more uniformity among them, however. I am trying not to fall into the trap of assuming that everything will become proprietary, but without an independent body saying "here's the standard, and here's where you are", then won't the compatibility problems get worse?
In my home state, "Education" is a college major. Someone who "only" has a PHd in biology would not be qualified to teach in High School, as they would need a Bachelor's in Education. I was an education major for about a year at my Alma-Mater, and, at the time, you had to pick a concentration:
Now the part about actual scientists not being qualified to teach science may seem silly, but the program does cover a great deal of psychology and child behavior classes, since a great deal of the job is dealing with other people's kids, despite the fact that you have only slightly more authority than the janitor or cafeteria crew.
Or maybe we just have nothing worthy of their attention. If galactic travel is possible, we cannot assume it is cheap. We may be talking about groups spending generations in transit, just to find that they are now in some backwater planet, full of people who mostly just want to kill them and take their stuff, and, oh yeah, if they ever get back home, by then, the generations of separation may have caused just enough evolutionary differences to make them have difficulty mating with their own people.
But, on the bright side, they got some books, DVDs and blue jeans, and learned a little about how one culture lived before inventing extra-solar travel.
Or, they may be waiting until we have a work force technologically advanced enough to refine and create useful materials. (Take that ominously, if you wish).
Good thing Slashdot is still up and running!
Unless... it was replaced with an impostor with some bad design decisions!
So the bad news is that slashdot got hacked. The good news is that they fixed Idle.
I personally don't mind it, but I have seen complaints because it is opt-out, which causes problems for people who don't allow cookies.
Oh, I thought you meant a traffic light that talks to the other drivers saying 'stop fucker, you're gonna ram somebody'...
Of course I hope the voices are moddable.
Some times the slippery slope argument is valid, this is one of those cases. The argument that users shouldn't be able to find bittorrent results "too easily" is actually weaker than the argument that users* just shouldn't be able to find bittorrent results so the jump seems imminent.
* Except law enforcement, politicians and members of the MAFIAA of course.
How about the argument that users should be able to search for what they want, but Google should have the right to not suggest certain controversial searches?
By your reasoning, here is an entire list of things that Google is going to start censoring from their search results, any minute now.