How did this idiotic comment get rated 5 Insightful?
Reading comprehension not up to par?
Did you miss the fact that Apple was trying to convince developers to NOT charge subscriptions and NOT pay fees on a regular schedule into ANYONES coffer. They were arguing for a one time purchase.
This isn't even a change, its a discussion, but the change is EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what you say it is. Developers have been offering apps as subscriptions. Apple thinks that's bad.
Obama didn't specifically introduce NN, but the FCC's three democrats did, and he supported it and he appointed his Chairman (I forget who) who everyone knew supported it.
The law in this area is all... old. Title II covers "telecommunication services" and has strict regulatory requirements. The FCC has authority to make rules for Title II telecommunication services, but not information services. That, the FTC (a much weaker agency) can sort of police not by setting rules by buy suing companies if they mislead consumers.
But this law wasn't passed when there was anything like what the internet is, and in the days of the likes of AOL and CompuServe and such, it made sense for the internet to be looked at as an information service.
But the internet is a whole lot more now, and most of the country has access to it via state-granted monopolies, there's no competition in it. So Obama's FCC ruled that it was a Title II telecom service. Some people claim that was an overstep of their authority, but that's questionable -- the law doesn't define what a telecom service *specifically is*, see. Its sort of up to the FCC to define what exactly qualifies as a Title II service.
Now this could all be fixed by Congress passing a law that actually made sense for the modern internet, buuut, the Republicans want no regulation on it at all so they get what they want this way.
Ajit Pai is neither ignorant nor incompetent; what he is, is just about the most corrupt person we've seen in a long while. Its not like these arguments he's making are things he is mistaken about: he's **lying** and he damn well knows it. But it fits his politics and his friends at Verizon's agenda to make some vaguely plausible excuse the courts or ignorant politicians will accept.
However, Britain is named because in the UK the burden of proof is opposite. In the US, to sue for defamation you have to *prove* that someone knowingly lied. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. In the UK, you use for defamation and the guy you're suing has to *prove* they told the truth.
British law leans towards protecting reputations; US law leans towards protecting speech.
In the US, most defamation suits go nowhere. In the UK, most are won. There's 'libel tourism' where people actually try to buy a book in the UK (even if it was not intended to be sold there exactly for this purpose) just to fall under UK's laws exactly because the standard of proof is also reversed in libel cases compared to the US.
It had this turbo button on it that fascinated me, I couldn't figure out why I would ever want it off.
Windows 3 took up half the hard-drive space, so like, first thought? Hey look nothing has changed.
I had a computer magazine (I forget which), that introduced me to BBSs, MUDs, then FreeBSD, and I was amazed how fast my computer ran when Windows wasn't taking up half my harddrive and being slow.
(Today: I am a mac guy with a windows gaming auxiliary machine, but that's now and the question is about then)
Apple has had an enterprise mechanism for installing custom apps for years now, completely bypassing the store. This has been the case almost as long as there's been an a store.
With the right management software, the apps can even be loaded and updated automatically. All without Apple ever seeing them.
There's only three levels (at least in Article III judges; magistrate judges and administrative judges are different, but since FISA uses district judges those aren't relevant): District Court judges, Appellate Circuit judges, and the Supremes.There isn't really a migration path between these. The vast majority of people who are appointed to a judgeship have it for life and never advance up a tier.
And there's no evidence at all that those that do advance up a tier do so because they "play ball". There's lots of judges who are very big on civil rights and look askance to police powers who advance: there's four of them on the Supremes right now. Who is appointed up a tier is a political question, and rarely has anything really to do with their judicial record -- especially not on their record of approving warrants.
The issue with FISA is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who picks its membership, and there's no review, no political process involved -- so whoever is President, or who controls Congress, is irrelevant to who ends up on FISA.
And since the FISA court has existed, the Chief Justice has always been a conservative Republican with a neocon tilt (as opposed to the libertarian tilt).
Nonsense. Federal judges refuse government requests all the time. Not all the time, no, but that's because warrants just require probable cause, not conclusive proof.
They get that salary no matter what: they get that salary if they never serve on FISA at all. They get that salary if they reject every request. They have a lifetime appointment at that salary. Their benefits are exactly the same as every other judge at their level: FISA membership or payment doesn't offer extra benefits as far as I can tell.
Since their rulings are classified, if they rule all for or against the government, they get the same spot on their resume, I see no incentive. There's no way to remove them from the position, and the Executive (and Legislative) doesn't even have a say in appointing them.
There's something wrong with the system, and that something is likely the fact that they are appointed on the sole discretion of a single member of the Supreme Court with no review or consultation with the President or the Senate, but there's no financial incentive for them to support the government.
The FISA Court judges are Federal District judges and make the same salary as any district judge, they serve on the FISA Court in addition their normal duties. Every few months some of the 11 judges go to Washington to serve FISA, on what I believe is a semi-informal rotating basis.
They serve seven year terms, and are appointed (without review) by the Chief Justice -- which means for as long as there's been a FISA Court, its been conservative Chief Justices appointing its membership.
Its notable they've picked one and only one Democrat in the entire history of the Court.
That said, they are appointed only for seven years and can't be appointed a second time. There is no mechanism for removal (short of impeaching their judgeship entirely), but there's really is no financial incentive to them support the government.
I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.
Fuck, no.
The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.
You must've missed my original request, so I'll repeat it. Define the terms. What does the term "man" mean? Thank you.
I didn't miss it, I ignored it as its a nonsense attempt at a semantic trap. Language hasn't caught up with the reality of what transgendered people go through.
It is something that is really wrong with someone, and which is appropriately treated in many cases not by medication or counseling but sexual reassignment surgery.
And that's a red herring. You managed to cut out the point where the mental health professionals diagnose gender dysphoria as an actual condition, not a delusion, not a belief.
Further, the condition is not a mental disease or disorder. Its not something that can be treated with medication or therapy (though therapy and medication are often used to manage the symptoms caused by the condition while the therapist works through the issues to determine if its really gender dysphoria and if surgery or hormone therapy is really needed).
Except the experts on things like delusions-- you know, the mental health profession-- has determined that gender dysphoria is not, in fact, a delusion. It is something that is really wrong with someone, and which is appropriately treated in many cases not by medication or counseling but sexual reassignment surgery.
Its in the freaking *manual* of the scientific and medical community that's responsible for diagnosing and treating mental health.
The anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't allow "some dude to walk in". It allows a transgendered woman to use the bathroom she feels safe in. You want to force her to use the men's bathroom, even though she's been on hormones and might be post-op, and think it would be safe for her in the men's room?
You want to force a transgendered man to use the women's bathroom? You think a genetically female person, who is on hormone therapy and has facial hair and dresses in men's clothes, would be welcome in the women's bathroom, and would feel comfortable and safe there?
By your own admission, your wife would object to the latter -- and threaten violence, in fact. You think that's sane or safe?
Wrong; the law removes the right of local governments to pass any anti-discrimination laws that are broader then the state.
The 'bathroom issue' is a smokescreen and a scare tactic used to hide the usual 'its okay to discriminate against gays because religious freedom' laws that are all the rage in the south these days.
As there are NO state laws protecting -- for instance -- employment or housing with regards to sexual orientation on the state level, and there were local laws, this explicitly removes those local protections.
Actually, the transgender / bathroom issue is real, but its used largely as a smokescreen for the fact that this law is, in fact, a direct attack on the LGBT community as a whole.
The law doesn't just mandate bathroom uses, but also removes the ability for any local government to pass any anti-discrimination legislation that is broader then the state definition (so much for small government). Specifically, laws against employment and housing discrimination of gay people.
In most places in the country, you can be fired for being gay. You can be denied an apartment because you're a lesbian. Only a few states actually include sexual orientation in the protected classes, even though polls repeatedly show most people think they're already protected. They aren't. A few communities, usually urban ones, are (with support of business interests) trying to add local protections.
And every time one of those communities does it in the south, suddenly the proponents of small and local government freak out and passes a state law taking away the local right to legislate the issue within their communities. NC is only the latest, and they did it using the bullshit 'protect the children from perverts' smokescreen argument around the Transgender bathroom issue.
There has been basically zero cases of men dressing up as women to try to get into a bathroom to assault women or girls. Rapists are going to rape and this won't protect anyone. Its a non-issue. Its a complete lie, a complete fabrication because while more and more people have friends and family members who are gay and are more and more finding it impossible to justify discrimination against the LGB community, Transgendered people are still relatively rare and the idea gender dysphoria is hard to relate to, so they're made easy targets.
But the laws that allow discrimination against them are -- every time -- broader then they're made out to be, and actually target the any community that might not be enshrined in the state law. Which is the entire LGBT community.
The 30-50% thing is a myth. Apple's most recent gross margin is something on the order of 25%. The iPhone has at times peaked in mid-30's. That's not 30% over 'market rates' (whatever that means), that's 30% over cost.
Having a margin in the 25% range is not at all unusual or excessive. Intel, Qualcomm and Cisco all have similar margins, and I found those with ten seconds of googling.
It hasn't really been about "them" getting anything for awhile now, is my perspective. There's a certain pile of cash and the lawyers want it and they'll get it (ahead of other creditors) by actively perusing lawsuit.
I just thought the pile ran out, but if that lawfirm filed again, clearly there's money somewhere they can grab.
This stopped being about anything but billable hours... years ago.
Apple's cut doesn't come from the merchant, it comes from the *bank*. The merchant gets the full amount. The bank pays the percentage in theory as payment to cut down on fraud.
Apple does solve problems, real problems that we hear about almost every month-- retailer X gets hacked and steals tens or hundreds of thousands of credit card numbers. Since Apple Pay transactions don't transfer the card number to the merchant, but instead a unique one time code, the merchant can't lose personal information it doesn't have.
Slashdot Mirror
How did this idiotic comment get rated 5 Insightful?
Reading comprehension not up to par?
Did you miss the fact that Apple was trying to convince developers to NOT charge subscriptions and NOT pay fees on a regular schedule into ANYONES coffer. They were arguing for a one time purchase.
This isn't even a change, its a discussion, but the change is EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what you say it is. Developers have been offering apps as subscriptions. Apple thinks that's bad.
Obama didn't specifically introduce NN, but the FCC's three democrats did, and he supported it and he appointed his Chairman (I forget who) who everyone knew supported it.
The law in this area is all... old. Title II covers "telecommunication services" and has strict regulatory requirements. The FCC has authority to make rules for Title II telecommunication services, but not information services. That, the FTC (a much weaker agency) can sort of police not by setting rules by buy suing companies if they mislead consumers.
But this law wasn't passed when there was anything like what the internet is, and in the days of the likes of AOL and CompuServe and such, it made sense for the internet to be looked at as an information service.
But the internet is a whole lot more now, and most of the country has access to it via state-granted monopolies, there's no competition in it. So Obama's FCC ruled that it was a Title II telecom service. Some people claim that was an overstep of their authority, but that's questionable -- the law doesn't define what a telecom service *specifically is*, see. Its sort of up to the FCC to define what exactly qualifies as a Title II service.
Now this could all be fixed by Congress passing a law that actually made sense for the modern internet, buuut, the Republicans want no regulation on it at all so they get what they want this way.
Ajit Pai is neither ignorant nor incompetent; what he is, is just about the most corrupt person we've seen in a long while. Its not like these arguments he's making are things he is mistaken about: he's **lying** and he damn well knows it. But it fits his politics and his friends at Verizon's agenda to make some vaguely plausible excuse the courts or ignorant politicians will accept.
I swear, Ajit Pai is trying to earn his place as literal devil. He is evil and every thought he's ever had is to hurt people.
You do realize that Time Warner sold its cable business?
'Time Warner' makes content. That's it. They don't compete with AT&T, which delivers content.
What?
Seriously I can't make any sense of what you said.
What?
No one said they were unique.
However, Britain is named because in the UK the burden of proof is opposite. In the US, to sue for defamation you have to *prove* that someone knowingly lied. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. In the UK, you use for defamation and the guy you're suing has to *prove* they told the truth.
British law leans towards protecting reputations; US law leans towards protecting speech.
In the US, most defamation suits go nowhere. In the UK, most are won. There's 'libel tourism' where people actually try to buy a book in the UK (even if it was not intended to be sold there exactly for this purpose) just to fall under UK's laws exactly because the standard of proof is also reversed in libel cases compared to the US.
It had this turbo button on it that fascinated me, I couldn't figure out why I would ever want it off.
Windows 3 took up half the hard-drive space, so like, first thought? Hey look nothing has changed.
I had a computer magazine (I forget which), that introduced me to BBSs, MUDs, then FreeBSD, and I was amazed how fast my computer ran when Windows wasn't taking up half my harddrive and being slow.
(Today: I am a mac guy with a windows gaming auxiliary machine, but that's now and the question is about then)
Why is this being portrayed like she did it because she had something to hide?
This is the responsible thing to do.
Apple has had an enterprise mechanism for installing custom apps for years now, completely bypassing the store. This has been the case almost as long as there's been an a store.
With the right management software, the apps can even be loaded and updated automatically. All without Apple ever seeing them.
There's only three levels (at least in Article III judges; magistrate judges and administrative judges are different, but since FISA uses district judges those aren't relevant): District Court judges, Appellate Circuit judges, and the Supremes.There isn't really a migration path between these. The vast majority of people who are appointed to a judgeship have it for life and never advance up a tier.
And there's no evidence at all that those that do advance up a tier do so because they "play ball". There's lots of judges who are very big on civil rights and look askance to police powers who advance: there's four of them on the Supremes right now. Who is appointed up a tier is a political question, and rarely has anything really to do with their judicial record -- especially not on their record of approving warrants.
The issue with FISA is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who picks its membership, and there's no review, no political process involved -- so whoever is President, or who controls Congress, is irrelevant to who ends up on FISA.
And since the FISA court has existed, the Chief Justice has always been a conservative Republican with a neocon tilt (as opposed to the libertarian tilt).
Derp. That second "all the time" was supposed to be "Not every single time".
Nonsense. Federal judges refuse government requests all the time. Not all the time, no, but that's because warrants just require probable cause, not conclusive proof.
They get that salary no matter what: they get that salary if they never serve on FISA at all. They get that salary if they reject every request. They have a lifetime appointment at that salary. Their benefits are exactly the same as every other judge at their level: FISA membership or payment doesn't offer extra benefits as far as I can tell.
Since their rulings are classified, if they rule all for or against the government, they get the same spot on their resume, I see no incentive. There's no way to remove them from the position, and the Executive (and Legislative) doesn't even have a say in appointing them.
There's something wrong with the system, and that something is likely the fact that they are appointed on the sole discretion of a single member of the Supreme Court with no review or consultation with the President or the Senate, but there's no financial incentive for them to support the government.
The FISA Court judges are Federal District judges and make the same salary as any district judge, they serve on the FISA Court in addition their normal duties. Every few months some of the 11 judges go to Washington to serve FISA, on what I believe is a semi-informal rotating basis.
They serve seven year terms, and are appointed (without review) by the Chief Justice -- which means for as long as there's been a FISA Court, its been conservative Chief Justices appointing its membership.
Its notable they've picked one and only one Democrat in the entire history of the Court.
That said, they are appointed only for seven years and can't be appointed a second time. There is no mechanism for removal (short of impeaching their judgeship entirely), but there's really is no financial incentive to them support the government.
I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.
Fuck, no.
The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.
Either way its not a story.
You must've missed my original request, so I'll repeat it. Define the terms. What does the term "man" mean? Thank you.
I didn't miss it, I ignored it as its a nonsense attempt at a semantic trap. Language hasn't caught up with the reality of what transgendered people go through.
Such as by attaching a furry tail, whiskers, and retractable claws?
And that's a red herring. You managed to cut out the point where the mental health professionals diagnose gender dysphoria as an actual condition, not a delusion, not a belief.
Further, the condition is not a mental disease or disorder. Its not something that can be treated with medication or therapy (though therapy and medication are often used to manage the symptoms caused by the condition while the therapist works through the issues to determine if its really gender dysphoria and if surgery or hormone therapy is really needed).
There's no "species dysphoria".
Except the experts on things like delusions-- you know, the mental health profession-- has determined that gender dysphoria is not, in fact, a delusion. It is something that is really wrong with someone, and which is appropriately treated in many cases not by medication or counseling but sexual reassignment surgery.
Its in the freaking *manual* of the scientific and medical community that's responsible for diagnosing and treating mental health.
> If someone walks into a restroom and looks like a man, he/she/it/whatever needs to leave.
Except this law doesn't do that, at all.
This law REQUIRES that a transgendered man -- genetically female, appearing male -- use a womens restroom.
It REQUIRES that a transgendered woman -- genetically male, appearing female -- use a men's restroom.
The anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't allow "some dude to walk in". It allows a transgendered woman to use the bathroom she feels safe in. You want to force her to use the men's bathroom, even though she's been on hormones and might be post-op, and think it would be safe for her in the men's room?
You want to force a transgendered man to use the women's bathroom? You think a genetically female person, who is on hormone therapy and has facial hair and dresses in men's clothes, would be welcome in the women's bathroom, and would feel comfortable and safe there?
By your own admission, your wife would object to the latter -- and threaten violence, in fact. You think that's sane or safe?
Wrong; the law removes the right of local governments to pass any anti-discrimination laws that are broader then the state.
The 'bathroom issue' is a smokescreen and a scare tactic used to hide the usual 'its okay to discriminate against gays because religious freedom' laws that are all the rage in the south these days.
As there are NO state laws protecting -- for instance -- employment or housing with regards to sexual orientation on the state level, and there were local laws, this explicitly removes those local protections.
Actually, the transgender / bathroom issue is real, but its used largely as a smokescreen for the fact that this law is, in fact, a direct attack on the LGBT community as a whole.
The law doesn't just mandate bathroom uses, but also removes the ability for any local government to pass any anti-discrimination legislation that is broader then the state definition (so much for small government). Specifically, laws against employment and housing discrimination of gay people.
In most places in the country, you can be fired for being gay. You can be denied an apartment because you're a lesbian. Only a few states actually include sexual orientation in the protected classes, even though polls repeatedly show most people think they're already protected. They aren't. A few communities, usually urban ones, are (with support of business interests) trying to add local protections.
And every time one of those communities does it in the south, suddenly the proponents of small and local government freak out and passes a state law taking away the local right to legislate the issue within their communities. NC is only the latest, and they did it using the bullshit 'protect the children from perverts' smokescreen argument around the Transgender bathroom issue.
There has been basically zero cases of men dressing up as women to try to get into a bathroom to assault women or girls. Rapists are going to rape and this won't protect anyone. Its a non-issue. Its a complete lie, a complete fabrication because while more and more people have friends and family members who are gay and are more and more finding it impossible to justify discrimination against the LGB community, Transgendered people are still relatively rare and the idea gender dysphoria is hard to relate to, so they're made easy targets.
But the laws that allow discrimination against them are -- every time -- broader then they're made out to be, and actually target the any community that might not be enshrined in the state law. Which is the entire LGBT community.
The 30-50% thing is a myth. Apple's most recent gross margin is something on the order of 25%. The iPhone has at times peaked in mid-30's. That's not 30% over 'market rates' (whatever that means), that's 30% over cost.
Having a margin in the 25% range is not at all unusual or excessive. Intel, Qualcomm and Cisco all have similar margins, and I found those with ten seconds of googling.
It hasn't really been about "them" getting anything for awhile now, is my perspective. There's a certain pile of cash and the lawyers want it and they'll get it (ahead of other creditors) by actively perusing lawsuit.
I just thought the pile ran out, but if that lawfirm filed again, clearly there's money somewhere they can grab.
This stopped being about anything but billable hours... years ago.
Apple's cut doesn't come from the merchant, it comes from the *bank*. The merchant gets the full amount. The bank pays the percentage in theory as payment to cut down on fraud.
Apple does solve problems, real problems that we hear about almost every month-- retailer X gets hacked and steals tens or hundreds of thousands of credit card numbers. Since Apple Pay transactions don't transfer the card number to the merchant, but instead a unique one time code, the merchant can't lose personal information it doesn't have.