If you installed an app from the Android Market, you can remove it from the Market app. Much quicker than your way. However, yours is the only way to get rid of non-Market apps.
Taking the subsidy is the only thing that makes sense in the US, since you're going to pay the same monthly rate whether you get subsidized or not (except on T-mo, and what do you want to bet that AT&T will kill those plans?).
IANAL, but glancing at Wikipedia it looks like "To show wrongful conduct such as misrepresentation, fraud, duress, unconscionability (276 N.E.2d 144, 147), or illegal purpose on the part of one or both parties" would qualify in this case. Anyone with legal training care to comment?
As you noted, it's the cost that kills this form of construction. If it's commercial space, it has to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which means you either have to build a really long ramp or put in an elevator.
There is no content. It's a telephone survey with no raw data, not even the specific questions asked. Saying "that's a pretty weak study" isn't ad-hominem, it's attacking the study on its (lack of) merits. Now,
But you are obviously not interested in the truth. You are more interested in advancing your pet theory while demonstrating willful ignorance.
It always amazes me the number of people who argue from a platform of ignorance, usually flaunting it like you did
You responded with what appears to be "I was wrong and I don't like being wrong, so I'll perform an ad hominem attack and then change the subject."
Those are ad hominem arguments.
I am still trying to figure out why this bothers you so much. You did, after all, say
When the state will give you an ID card for free, then it will no longer be a poll tax
Whatever, chief. Get back to me when you figure out what "ad hominem" means - I certainly didn't attack you, just the survey you cited. And in my original post I described a simple method to combat multiple voting that doesn't require anyone to be identified at all, but you ignored that, as well as the question of how these people register to vote. Still, maybe I'm just dead wrong. Don't really care; you and I yapping on the internet isn't going to change anything.
A telephone survey. Yeah, nobody ever messes with those. The only supporting hard fact is that about 12% of Americans of voting age lack a driver's license. How do these people register to vote? A quick Google suggests that at least some states do actually require a picture ID or the proofs that would be required to get a picture ID in order to register to vote (Arizona, e.g.). Iowa permits you to vote without any identification if you have a registered voter in your precinct who will vouch for your identity.
Any US student going straight there from high school would have a very, very difficult time because they'd be lacking in all the other subjects.
A student who went to a good high school wouldn't. Don't forget that in most European countries, universities just don't take people who didn't go to good secondary schools, while American schools will.
I get the impression that the 1st year of US university is a bit more like 16-18 education in the UK.
That's a fair assessment, but it's not just that. Most universities in the US require a fairly broad distribution of courses in order to graduate. I majored in chemistry, and we were required to have something like a third or more of our classes not only outside our major but outside the sciences. Most of those were introductory classes, but a fair number were higher level. I almost got a minor in classics without intending to do so.
I seriously doubt that there are millions of American citizens of voting age who do not have IDs. However, make the voter ID cards free. Done.
Why would it be a good idea if it adds an additional burden and doesn't really address fraud?
Because it does address fraud, even if it's a relatively minor form - there are anecdotes of people who have been unable to vote because of it in this very thread. The greater value is that it improves public confidence in the system.
In the segregation era in the South, there were often poll taxes (nominal fees intended to keep poor whites and all blacks from voting) and literacy tests (white voters might be asked to read the King James Version of John 3:16, black voters to explain the meaning of the Fourth Amendment). For reasons I do not fully understand, the idea that you should have to show identification to vote has become part of this parcel - perhaps because people think that having to have an ID is a poll tax, perhaps because they think that a disproportionate number of black voters will have white poll workers declare "this picture looks nothing like you".
I think that having to show ID is a pretty good idea, even if it's not really a major source of fraud. Most vote fraud occurs with absentee ballots, but the lack of voter ID presents a real credibility problem to the public. Unfortunately, absentee ballots can't be banned, because any attempt to do so will result in a litany of stories about deployed soldiers who can't vote because they can't meet any of the normal standards for verification. As a compromise, we might elect to use indelible ink (as is used in India and Iraq) to mark one finger of all voters. This does not prevent voting out of your district but does prevent voting multiple times.
Considering that it was an under-the-radar campaign by the Pew Charitable Trusts that got the horrid legislation through in the first place, I'd say that turnabout is fair play. Especially when "corporations" are the primary means of organization in the US for anything - churches, volunteer organizations, the local animal shelter, EVERYTHING.
How many of them know the leaker? Putting aside the real scene guys that push out 0-day movies, etc., that number is basically nil. And for this to be a concern at all, you have to assume that Apple wants to crater its huge, massively profitable hardware business in order to save an industry that it could buy out using petty cash. Apple has over $60B in cash and liquid securities; the entire RIAA's sales were less than $7B in 2010 (here).
So? All that proves is that you have a file that was once leaked illegally, not that you obtained it illegally (after all, someone had to have the legal right to make it in the first place). And once you've done that, you're going to have to try to make a charge of copyright infringement stick based on mere file possession. I have never seen a suit by the RIAA or MPAA where the defendant was charged with possessing a single digital copy of a song... only for sharing.
I'm neither English, nor a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that while aspects of due process as understood in the US are protected in England via common law, the American ideas of due process actually have no direct correlate in English law. As the guy was arrested in Essex, English law surely applies.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll add that my experience parallels blahbooboo's - iOS 4 works great on my iPad 1.
If you installed an app from the Android Market, you can remove it from the Market app. Much quicker than your way. However, yours is the only way to get rid of non-Market apps.
Taking the subsidy is the only thing that makes sense in the US, since you're going to pay the same monthly rate whether you get subsidized or not (except on T-mo, and what do you want to bet that AT&T will kill those plans?).
lot of libertarians here that would like to see the whole system burn
Libertarianism and anarchism aren't the same thing. Especially when it comes to property rights.
IANAL, but glancing at Wikipedia it looks like "To show wrongful conduct such as misrepresentation, fraud, duress, unconscionability (276 N.E.2d 144, 147), or illegal purpose on the part of one or both parties" would qualify in this case. Anyone with legal training care to comment?
As you noted, it's the cost that kills this form of construction. If it's commercial space, it has to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which means you either have to build a really long ramp or put in an elevator.
But you are obviously not interested in the truth. You are more interested in advancing your pet theory while demonstrating willful ignorance.
It always amazes me the number of people who argue from a platform of ignorance, usually flaunting it like you did
You responded with what appears to be "I was wrong and I don't like being wrong, so I'll perform an ad hominem attack and then change the subject."
Those are ad hominem arguments.
I am still trying to figure out why this bothers you so much. You did, after all, say
When the state will give you an ID card for free, then it will no longer be a poll tax
and I happily agreed that should be so.
Whatever, chief. Get back to me when you figure out what "ad hominem" means - I certainly didn't attack you, just the survey you cited. And in my original post I described a simple method to combat multiple voting that doesn't require anyone to be identified at all, but you ignored that, as well as the question of how these people register to vote. Still, maybe I'm just dead wrong. Don't really care; you and I yapping on the internet isn't going to change anything.
A telephone survey. Yeah, nobody ever messes with those. The only supporting hard fact is that about 12% of Americans of voting age lack a driver's license. How do these people register to vote? A quick Google suggests that at least some states do actually require a picture ID or the proofs that would be required to get a picture ID in order to register to vote (Arizona, e.g.). Iowa permits you to vote without any identification if you have a registered voter in your precinct who will vouch for your identity.
Any US student going straight there from high school would have a very, very difficult time because they'd be lacking in all the other subjects.
A student who went to a good high school wouldn't. Don't forget that in most European countries, universities just don't take people who didn't go to good secondary schools, while American schools will.
I get the impression that the 1st year of US university is a bit more like 16-18 education in the UK.
That's a fair assessment, but it's not just that. Most universities in the US require a fairly broad distribution of courses in order to graduate. I majored in chemistry, and we were required to have something like a third or more of our classes not only outside our major but outside the sciences. Most of those were introductory classes, but a fair number were higher level. I almost got a minor in classics without intending to do so.
Why would it be a good idea if it adds an additional burden and doesn't really address fraud?
Because it does address fraud, even if it's a relatively minor form - there are anecdotes of people who have been unable to vote because of it in this very thread. The greater value is that it improves public confidence in the system.
It's hard because we want it to be anonymous. Your bank accounts, health records, etc., aren't.
You can vote on a machine, have the machine print a voting ballot, and have the voter verify the ballot before dropping it in the box.
In the segregation era in the South, there were often poll taxes (nominal fees intended to keep poor whites and all blacks from voting) and literacy tests (white voters might be asked to read the King James Version of John 3:16, black voters to explain the meaning of the Fourth Amendment). For reasons I do not fully understand, the idea that you should have to show identification to vote has become part of this parcel - perhaps because people think that having to have an ID is a poll tax, perhaps because they think that a disproportionate number of black voters will have white poll workers declare "this picture looks nothing like you".
I think that having to show ID is a pretty good idea, even if it's not really a major source of fraud. Most vote fraud occurs with absentee ballots, but the lack of voter ID presents a real credibility problem to the public. Unfortunately, absentee ballots can't be banned, because any attempt to do so will result in a litany of stories about deployed soldiers who can't vote because they can't meet any of the normal standards for verification. As a compromise, we might elect to use indelible ink (as is used in India and Iraq) to mark one finger of all voters. This does not prevent voting out of your district but does prevent voting multiple times.
If you don't need one, it saves a lot of space and weight.
And AHRA would be strong defense.
The average government has resources that are a bit larger than the resources of even a moderately successful publicly-traded company.
Considering that it was an under-the-radar campaign by the Pew Charitable Trusts that got the horrid legislation through in the first place, I'd say that turnabout is fair play. Especially when "corporations" are the primary means of organization in the US for anything - churches, volunteer organizations, the local animal shelter, EVERYTHING.
How many of them know the leaker? Putting aside the real scene guys that push out 0-day movies, etc., that number is basically nil. And for this to be a concern at all, you have to assume that Apple wants to crater its huge, massively profitable hardware business in order to save an industry that it could buy out using petty cash. Apple has over $60B in cash and liquid securities; the entire RIAA's sales were less than $7B in 2010 (here).
The sharers might have broken the law, but good luck proving the leecher did.
So? All that proves is that you have a file that was once leaked illegally, not that you obtained it illegally (after all, someone had to have the legal right to make it in the first place). And once you've done that, you're going to have to try to make a charge of copyright infringement stick based on mere file possession. I have never seen a suit by the RIAA or MPAA where the defendant was charged with possessing a single digital copy of a song... only for sharing.
I'm neither English, nor a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that while aspects of due process as understood in the US are protected in England via common law, the American ideas of due process actually have no direct correlate in English law. As the guy was arrested in Essex, English law surely applies.
More serious crimes get you sent to gang-rape prisons, not county lockup.
Don't even have to be white. If you're male, no degree of poverty will qualify you for Medicaid. Disability, however, will.