Your first analogy is alright; after that they fall apart.
McDonald's doesn't offer Pepsi because they have a contract with Coke. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs. (Offending The Jobs includes things like releasing software that competes with Apple's own offerings in any way)
Target doesn't sell Walmart generics for obvious reasons, but they do sell their own generics. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs.
Barnes and Noble doesn't carry your novel because it's probably got no publisher and they have no way of even getting your novel on their shelves. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs.
Or they realized that people like to take photos with smartphones because they're already always carrying a smartphone. Adding these apps to high end cameras isn't going to suddenly convince your average Joes to go out and buy expensive, bulky cameras en masse.
I think the realization has become, "Hey, we have a device here with a screen and a processor. We already have the capability to run a more fully-featured embedded OS. Why maintain our own OS when we could just concentrate on our own interface on top of Android?"
The same thing is happening with high-end audio equipment. The hardware to run it is so cheap there's practically no reason to not just run Android on anything with a decent processor.
If an 80-year-old woman came up to you and asked "Sex?", you'd probably leave very very quickly.
If an 80-year-old woman came up to an 80-year-old man and asked "sex?" she'd probably be getting laid right now. The point isn't that women can have sex with whoever they want, the point is that they can get sex whenever they want.
But actually, 80 years old is probably where that might start to invert a bit, because men are so scarce by that age that the available ones are probably getting as much as they want anyway. For the first 60 years of life it's not even close.
No we aren't. This is completely offtopic, but I'll respond anyway.
First, a 3-month-old human fetus is barely distinguishable from any other mammal at that stage of its development. What evidence do you have that makes you think that 3 months is a special developmental barrier where the fetus deserves some sort of "protected" status?
Second, here's what you're failing to understand: if you don't want to have an abortion after 3 months, DON'T DO IT. Nothing is preventing you from having and acting on your belief. This should be particularly easy for you, because you're not a woman. However, when you try to make everyone else conform to YOUR beliefs, THEY must act against their own will to satisfy what YOU think is right. If the fetus somehow had rights and its own opinion? Its opinion would STILL force the mother to act against her own will. If it wants to be alive that badly, it can find a way to survive outside the womb on its own. Fortunately, we don't live in a fantasy world where a fetus has any wants, desires, or opinions, so this isn't actually an issue.
Do you understand this distinction? I don't think you do, because your libertarian-leaning self still probably thinks that those mean ol' libruls are repressing you with your -1 mods.
Complicit = complying with. Who are they complying with? What other force is driving down standards? Could that, perhaps, be a bipartisan effort led largely by Republicans who want to make sure that evolution is kept "in controversy" for as long as possible?
Also, list a couple of specific examples of lowering standards that were championed by the Democratic party. I think you'll find that when you compare their transgressions to those of the Evangelical Republican element, at best, you'll find a false equivalence.
The funny thing is that you probably accuse people who are concerned about AGW as being prophets of doom-and-gloom.
Here's the difference between us: we see fuel use and choice as a challenge to be overcome, as we have overcome so many other challenges throughout human history. You see the status quo and can't (with your own severely limited personal knowledge) conceive any method to fix it without OMG MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES ARE DOOOOOOOOMED!
Anecdotally, I have found that the worst drivers tend to use their huge vehicles as a safety blanket. They don't pay attention to traffic and anticipate upcoming maneuvers, they don't know how to react to unexpected actions by other drivers, and most importantly they *can't* react because their vehicle is too unwieldly. When something comes up, the best they can do is slam on the brakes and hope that their momentum doesn't carry them into an accident. It's a form of learned helplessness. People who know how to drive have no fear of piloting a normal-sized vehicle.
The reason Apple hasn't been offered the same rates as others is because most others who license them have actually contributed to the FRAND pool. Apple isn't a technology innovator: they just repackage what other people have already built. Therefore, they haven't contributed jack shit to the patent pool, so they get to pay their full worth.
Just another liberal happy to kill for the cause I suppose. There sure are a disturbing number of you around these days, unwilling to debate and only to destroy.
That's some nice projection you've got going on there. I invite you to visit any number of message boards and count the number of death threats vs. liberals vs. death threats against conservatives and see if it supports your assumption.
The problem with your argument, and the point you seem to be missing, is that the health care system is ALREADY fucked up. It is becoming increasingly fucked up as time goes on. And there is little incentive for the health care system to fix itself, because it is already insanely profitable.
Every speculative argument (except, of course, the non-sequiturs about dogfood and the post office) you make against government-run health care (and you have made many of them) ALREADY APPLIES to the system we have TODAY. And we have MANY real-life, working examples of government-run health care elsewhere in the world where they DO NOT have the problems that our system has. You're hilariously willing to strike Canada off that list of examples because of a couple anecdotes you read about, but even then you STILL have nothing to say about the dozens of other systems that are -- objectively -- measurably better than ours.
For someone as notoriously cheap as you are, you sure are penny-wise pound-foolish in this case.
Wrongly, as obviously, in a free society, you can not have a right to force other people to pay your healthcare bills any more than you can have a right to own slaves.
Strawman argument. A.K.A. lie.
Repeat it often enough and you'll get other people to believe it, though.
How many patients in the US are denied care per year? Care to dig up those statistics? Care to dig up projections on how that number will change under the ACA?
Because without context, the numbers and anecdotes you've provided are absolutely meaningless.
If you make your voting decisions based on who the candidates put their dick in, you're doing it very, very wrong.
If you make your voting decisions based on who the candidates promise they won't put their dick in, and then break that promise, you're still doing it wrong, but slightly less so.
There is also the fact that if eBay really does start fucking over customers (more than they do already), people will find out and stop using eBay. The Internet is quite good at that.
Heh, your idealism and belief in the ability of your fellow man to keep informed of things like this is cute.
eBay does something it doesn't have to -- lets you opt out.
Yeah, so if you do that you can form a class with the other 25 people who opted out. Should be a piece of cake to get a high powered legal team capable of fighting a multi-year battle with eBay's lawyers to take that case.
And I should point out that, in cases of rape or sexual assault, physical evidence is frequently discounted too: many people make the argument that the grabbed-woman-in-a-park was actually really consenting to public anonymous sex, as evidenced by her clothing, or her being in that area at night, etc., etc.
Nobody credible does this, and asserting that this is true weakens the rest of your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Your first analogy is alright; after that they fall apart.
McDonald's doesn't offer Pepsi because they have a contract with Coke. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs. (Offending The Jobs includes things like releasing software that competes with Apple's own offerings in any way)
Target doesn't sell Walmart generics for obvious reasons, but they do sell their own generics. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs.
Barnes and Noble doesn't carry your novel because it's probably got no publisher and they have no way of even getting your novel on their shelves. It has nothing to do with not offending customers or The Jobs.
--Jeremy
What kind of professor has time to babysit their students like that?
--Jeremy
Or they realized that people like to take photos with smartphones because they're already always carrying a smartphone. Adding these apps to high end cameras isn't going to suddenly convince your average Joes to go out and buy expensive, bulky cameras en masse.
I think the realization has become, "Hey, we have a device here with a screen and a processor. We already have the capability to run a more fully-featured embedded OS. Why maintain our own OS when we could just concentrate on our own interface on top of Android?"
The same thing is happening with high-end audio equipment. The hardware to run it is so cheap there's practically no reason to not just run Android on anything with a decent processor.
--Jeremy
So in response to your title: you're saying that Apple's walled garden doesn't protect its users from this sort of behavior?
Are typical Apple users aware that they need to be cautious of this kind of behavior?
If the walled garden doesn't protect them, and according to you, *can't* protect them, what's the point of the walled garden at all?
--Jeremy
And those living in feudal China. Don't forget those.
--Jeremy
If an 80-year-old woman came up to you and asked "Sex?", you'd probably leave very very quickly.
If an 80-year-old woman came up to an 80-year-old man and asked "sex?" she'd probably be getting laid right now. The point isn't that women can have sex with whoever they want, the point is that they can get sex whenever they want.
But actually, 80 years old is probably where that might start to invert a bit, because men are so scarce by that age that the available ones are probably getting as much as they want anyway. For the first 60 years of life it's not even close.
--Jeremy
From his description of how code goes into a processor, I can envision how he would have easily slipped by because they thought he was clueless.
--Jeremy
Let me guess: you're one of those that's all in favor of turning our institutions of higher learning into trade schools?
--Jeremy
No we aren't. This is completely offtopic, but I'll respond anyway.
First, a 3-month-old human fetus is barely distinguishable from any other mammal at that stage of its development. What evidence do you have that makes you think that 3 months is a special developmental barrier where the fetus deserves some sort of "protected" status?
Second, here's what you're failing to understand: if you don't want to have an abortion after 3 months, DON'T DO IT. Nothing is preventing you from having and acting on your belief. This should be particularly easy for you, because you're not a woman. However, when you try to make everyone else conform to YOUR beliefs, THEY must act against their own will to satisfy what YOU think is right. If the fetus somehow had rights and its own opinion? Its opinion would STILL force the mother to act against her own will. If it wants to be alive that badly, it can find a way to survive outside the womb on its own. Fortunately, we don't live in a fantasy world where a fetus has any wants, desires, or opinions, so this isn't actually an issue.
Do you understand this distinction? I don't think you do, because your libertarian-leaning self still probably thinks that those mean ol' libruls are repressing you with your -1 mods.
--Jeremy
Complicit = complying with. Who are they complying with? What other force is driving down standards? Could that, perhaps, be a bipartisan effort led largely by Republicans who want to make sure that evolution is kept "in controversy" for as long as possible?
Also, list a couple of specific examples of lowering standards that were championed by the Democratic party. I think you'll find that when you compare their transgressions to those of the Evangelical Republican element, at best, you'll find a false equivalence.
--Jeremy
The funny thing is that you probably accuse people who are concerned about AGW as being prophets of doom-and-gloom.
Here's the difference between us: we see fuel use and choice as a challenge to be overcome, as we have overcome so many other challenges throughout human history. You see the status quo and can't (with your own severely limited personal knowledge) conceive any method to fix it without OMG MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES ARE DOOOOOOOOMED!
--Jeremy
Anecdotally, I have found that the worst drivers tend to use their huge vehicles as a safety blanket. They don't pay attention to traffic and anticipate upcoming maneuvers, they don't know how to react to unexpected actions by other drivers, and most importantly they *can't* react because their vehicle is too unwieldly. When something comes up, the best they can do is slam on the brakes and hope that their momentum doesn't carry them into an accident. It's a form of learned helplessness. People who know how to drive have no fear of piloting a normal-sized vehicle.
--Jeremy
You don't know what computer science is. It's not "learning to use a computer."
--Jeremy
I guess we can just chalk up all of the examples of socialism we see in most of Europe as failures, eh? Because you said so?
You still don't have any data to back up your bullshit. You've got nothing.
--Jeremy
You don't have any data to back up your assertions, but I'm sure you believe them 100% just the same.
--Jeremy
The reason Apple hasn't been offered the same rates as others is because most others who license them have actually contributed to the FRAND pool. Apple isn't a technology innovator: they just repackage what other people have already built. Therefore, they haven't contributed jack shit to the patent pool, so they get to pay their full worth.
--Jeremy
Just another liberal happy to kill for the cause I suppose. There sure are a disturbing number of you around these days, unwilling to debate and only to destroy.
That's some nice projection you've got going on there. I invite you to visit any number of message boards and count the number of death threats vs. liberals vs. death threats against conservatives and see if it supports your assumption.
--Jeremy
Not invited to the table? Did you somehow miss the (IIRC) 170 amendments they made to the bill?
--Jeremy
The problem with your argument, and the point you seem to be missing, is that the health care system is ALREADY fucked up. It is becoming increasingly fucked up as time goes on. And there is little incentive for the health care system to fix itself, because it is already insanely profitable.
Every speculative argument (except, of course, the non-sequiturs about dogfood and the post office) you make against government-run health care (and you have made many of them) ALREADY APPLIES to the system we have TODAY. And we have MANY real-life, working examples of government-run health care elsewhere in the world where they DO NOT have the problems that our system has. You're hilariously willing to strike Canada off that list of examples because of a couple anecdotes you read about, but even then you STILL have nothing to say about the dozens of other systems that are -- objectively -- measurably better than ours.
For someone as notoriously cheap as you are, you sure are penny-wise pound-foolish in this case.
--Jeremy
Wrongly, as obviously, in a free society, you can not have a right to force other people to pay your healthcare bills any more than you can have a right to own slaves.
Strawman argument. A.K.A. lie.
Repeat it often enough and you'll get other people to believe it, though.
--Jeremy
How many patients in the US are denied care per year? Care to dig up those statistics? Care to dig up projections on how that number will change under the ACA?
Because without context, the numbers and anecdotes you've provided are absolutely meaningless.
--Jeremy
If you make your voting decisions based on who the candidates put their dick in, you're doing it very, very wrong.
If you make your voting decisions based on who the candidates promise they won't put their dick in, and then break that promise, you're still doing it wrong, but slightly less so.
--Jeremy
There is also the fact that if eBay really does start fucking over customers (more than they do already), people will find out and stop using eBay. The Internet is quite good at that.
Heh, your idealism and belief in the ability of your fellow man to keep informed of things like this is cute.
--Jeremy
eBay does something it doesn't have to -- lets you opt out.
Yeah, so if you do that you can form a class with the other 25 people who opted out. Should be a piece of cake to get a high powered legal team capable of fighting a multi-year battle with eBay's lawyers to take that case.
--Jeremy
And I should point out that, in cases of rape or sexual assault, physical evidence is frequently discounted too: many people make the argument that the grabbed-woman-in-a-park was actually really consenting to public anonymous sex, as evidenced by her clothing, or her being in that area at night, etc., etc.
Nobody credible does this, and asserting that this is true weakens the rest of your argument.
--Jeremy