Your response should be widely reproduced by the media to calm down all this hysteria. The problem is that Apple will have to at least settle this out of court. Privacy is important but knee-jerk lawsuits should be thrown out of court.
Years of formal education correlates moderately with intelligence. Whether or not our measurement of IQ is valid is a different question but the "popular" use of "more educated" does have to do with intelligence, at least as measured by IQ tests.
With the Nexus S you get the good version(s) of Android. Many other phones never get good updates to their OSes. Many others are also cumbered by bloatware and changes by the hardware manufacturer. Your particular phone is one main reason you like Android so much. I like Android too but there are some significant problems with it, some of which are due to manufacturers that are not as good as Apple is in providing OS updates.
Mod the parent 'Funny'. We all know that specs mean everything. Besides, those specs don't "smoke" the iPad. It looks pretty similar other than a smaller screen and better cameras. More RAM doesn't mean much because apps are designed to use much less RAM than what is in the tablet.
That's the only way to compete with Apple. I guess once the tablet apps in the Android Marketplace(s) get built up more there might be some incentive there but right now without a (significantly) lower priced product, it is really hard to compete with Apple's iPad.
National Defense is part of the Constitution. Healthcare isn't. I'm not saying it's unconstitutional, but defense spending definitely is Constitutional.
"the health care in UK and Canada is a billion times better than in the US"
Not remotely. There are a lot problems with both (including that the systems are unsustainable - both the UK and Canada are privatizing health care more and more because they cannot afford to keep up what they have).
Other countries get to spend less because the U.S. spends more. But you can't just look at total money spent; you have to look at it as a % of GDP at least.
We could spend less certainly but at least defense spending is something the Constitution states that the government must spend money on.
And yet some of us (including myself) make our living doing just that - virtually slicing the brain (images of it) into sections and seeing how areas of the brain relate with behavior. Some of us (myself included) look at not just the discrete areas but also the "wiring". Don't worry, the wiring maps of the brain are in the works too.
The Democrats are tax-and-spend whereas the Republicans are don't-tax-but-spend-less-but-still-too-much. Almost all of the massive increases in spending have come since 2006 when Democrats took over Congress. I'm not saying Republicans are off the hook but they do not spend more than Democrats do (generally). Congress is in charge of spending - the President can influence it but Congress has control.
I don't disagree; I was just pointing out that most MDs don't do research even if they are partakers of research. One problem comes in fitting science and math into their medical education. There just isn't time - there are too many medical courses to take. It would be great to do during a residency though (if it was in lieu of some clinical responsibilities).
Medical doctors don't receive a background in math and statistics because most MDs do not do research. An MD is a clinical (professional) degree, unlike a PhD. A math and statistics would help but frankly, most would never use it.
As an academic, I edit Wikipedia whenever I see glaring errors in articles about things for which I have a specialty. There are articles that I could contribute but realistically, when it comes down to working on my research or contributing to Wikipedia, I do my research first. It's not elitism - I really like Wikipedia - it's being practical. I have a job to do first. There are a number of articles I want to write but I haven't taken the time to do it yet.
Here is part of the method: "Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay... Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow." (Book of Mormon, Alma 32: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32.17-43?lang=eng#16).
I've done that and have that experience. First you have to want to believe. Then you need to act on that belief. You have to have faith first if you want to know. As part of this process you also need to read the scriptures, which include the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and do this:
"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:3-5: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.3-5?lang=eng#2).
The method thus far is want to believe. Act on that belief, read the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon), remember the mercies of Jesus Christ, really think about them, then pray to God in the name of Christ with a sincere heart, real intent, with faith in Christ. Then you will feel the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and know that what you have read and what you are doing are true.
It's simple but you have to be willing to do it just like that. That's the method, or at least a portion of it. If it came across as preachy, that's the way it is. I've done all that and have the evidence provided by God's Spirit that it's true. I've seen other things, miracles if you will, but Slashdot really is not the forum for sharing those experiences. I've seen this process change people's lives, all for the better.
There are other experiments that can be done but the process I wrote is the start and then you can go from there. You might ask, where's the knowledge - t
You're misinterpreting circulation with quality. If you want the classic counter, look at Fox News. They have more viewers than other TV news channels but is their quality that much better? [I'd at least argue that it's no worse in quality but I don't watch any TV news so I can't really say].
At best only 30% of variance in homosexual behaviors is explained by biology (and that number is not as high for women). That leaves most of the behavior due to other causes or factors. I've done the literature search myself but the summary of it on Wikipedia is pretty accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
You cannot compare homosexuality to race. The comparison to Christianity is apt though because that by and large is a choice, or at least not biologically determined (although there now is some genetic evidence supporting religious beliefs - meaning that someone's tendency to be religious appears to be partially genetic). As a Christian, I certainly would not be offended by a "Cure a Christian" app.
If it's okay to say that "being overweight is a result of poor choices" (obesity at least is partially explained by genes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Genetics), why isn't it okay to say "being homosexual is a result of poor choices"? Note, I'm not saying that, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
What evidence would it take to convince you? Is there anything I could ever say on Slashdot that would convince you?
If you are anything like me then the answers to those questions are: Personal experience; no. Personally, I don't find philosophical arguments for the existence of God helpful (yes, some are clever but and thought-provoking but so is science). I like real evidence. However, the evidence I have cannot be conveyed to you, it's based on a hypothesis you have to be willing to test yourself. Would it be nice to email you evidence? Yes, but unfortunately that's not how it works ([I know the counter arguments: yes, really convenient, isn't it? It's certainly a nice "out" from providing evidence, huh?]. Does that mean that I have no evidence, as you say? Not at all. You cannot say I have no evidence just as I can't say anything about you.
Could I send you evidence that I love my wife or children? No, pictures or lists of deeds or even their testimonies under sworn oath of "Yes, dogmatixpsych does love us" will not work. I might tell them I love them or I might do things for them that they interpret as motivated by love but I could simply be misleading them. So where is the evidence of my love? Is it tied completely to my actions and words? Some people argue that but I find that insufficient because I know that people can be dishonest and that what they do is not always what they believe. I also find it problematic to completely operationalize things like emotions. Observable and measurable behavior is great (and important evidence) and it certainly supports the idea of my love but it's not the entire picture; it's necessary but not sufficient. But I do love my wife and kids. You don't have to believe me but you also might not believe me even if I could produce evidence of it.
Furthering this discussion is useless. I would not believe the way I do without personal experience that verifies the truth of it. This is not knowledge I can convey to you but you could know for yourself whether what I know (or, believe I know) is true or whether I'm simply delusional, dishonest, or just misguided (or maybe all three). The scientific method will not work in this case (although some of the philosophical foundations of it apply); in order for you to find out whether or not I really am delusional you have to be willing to try a different method (one that involves faith, prayer, and a lot of work) but one with real results.
I'm not dodging your request for evidence; I just cannot transfer it to you but I can tell you more about how you can verify what I claim I have as evidence yourself by having it yourself. That's much better than me telling you. Yes, I could provide examples of some of what adds to my evidence but what is the real, strongest evidence is internal and no amount of other evidence that I can provide would work.
I think this is a fairer answer than you'd get from many other people because there's no "trust me"; it's all, "You can know for yourself", you just have to be willing to do the experiments yourself.
It might appear circular but it certainly is not solipsistic. I am a materialist; I believe that the external world exists and can be known (that's one reason I'm a scientist). I also was not making an argument, I was merely setting up the philosophical structure upon which a rational discussion of the existence or non-existence of God might be built.
In any case, let's substitute pink unicorns. Person X says, "I have seen a pink unicorn." Can person Y, who has not seen a pink unicorn, say, "Pink unicorns do not exist"? Yes, person Y can say that but how does person Y know that? Has he omnipresently checked the entire universe and thus ruled out the existence of pink unicorns?
Now let's say that person Z enters the picture. Person Z says, "I have seen a pink unicorn." Person X says, "That's great! The pink unicorn I saw looked like such and such." Person Z says, "The pink unicorn I say did not look like that." Person X replies, "Oh, maybe you saw a different one or maybe you did not really see one." Person Y chimes in, "You both were hallucinating." Person Z states, "Maybe, but it was very convincing."
So who is right? Is the person who has not seen a pink unicorn right? Do pink unicorns not exist? Maybe but maybe not. Are the two people who have seen (or at least claimed to have seen) pink unicorns right? Maybe, maybe not.
Let's say that there are now 80 billion people who have not seen a pink unicorn and 1 person who has (or, at least claimed to have). Who is right? Are the 80 billion who have not seen correct? Maybe, maybe not. Is the 1 person wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Can the 1 person have a fully rational discussion with any of the 80 billion who have not seen a pink unicorn? Probably not. Does that make the 1 person irrational? Not necessarily.
I know that's a lot of non-commital language but that's the nature of empiricism (used in the broader, experimental sense and not necessarily in the sense-based sense).
Now, what if the 80 billion people say to the 1 who saw a pink unicorn (again, at least claimed to see), "OK, we're willing to believe you if you can prove its existence." The 1 replies, "Good, here is how you do it. Go to the Ural Mountains, hike to the top of Mount Narodnaya, spin around 3.5 times, and you will see a pink unicorn." Most of the 80 billion say, "You are crazy" and don't do it. Some say, "Ok, we'll try it" and then go and do it. They all come back and say, "We have seen a pink unicorn. The 1 was correct." The rest of the 80 billion say, "There are no pink unicorns. We have done scientific experiments and never have seen evidence of pink unicorns." Those who have seen say, "You're not doing the correct experiments; the 1 told you the process by which you can verify the truth of his claim but what you've been doing will not work. This does not mean that his claim is not true, it's just that some of the methods you are trying are not suited to the question. A discussion of your claims of the non-existence - or, even if you want to remain agnostic about the matter - of pink unicorns and our claims of their existence, at least the existence of one of them, can really never be rational and fully productive until you try "
That example might be severely flawed (there are some flaws: I could have expanded and added in that the pink unicorn might be invisible so you can't see it, you have to experience it in other ways; that would lead on to another discussion about the nature of knowing, which is too long for this reply - philosophers have been debating this for 1000s of years). It might even seem completely fanciful, but I find this an extremely helpful argument (not the pink unicorn one, the broader one you were referring to) because it lays a groundwork of reproducibility. I claim X. I came to know X by doing Y. What does an experimentalist do? The experimentalist goes, "Ok, if I do Y, I can verify whether or not X is true." So what if the experimentalist does Y and doesn't find X? Does that rule out X? No, it doesn't. Does it mean there
My "in that same vein" comment was completely sarcastic. But as numerous other people have explained, there are legitimate uses of the apps. I'm not saying either way if I support them but I don't think the government should step in just because the apps could be used for wrong. It's fine to criticize Apple or Google or other companies for their app policies but the government is trying to be too heavy handed here.
In that same vein, let's get rid of the internet because it could be used for illegal activities. Or, maybe Apple and Google could pull their browsers because those can be used for morally questionable or illegal activities.
Those apps can be used for completely legitimate activities, just because they could be used for something that's illegal or even just morally questionable isn't a great reason for pulling them from the App Store (and other marketplaces for mobile apps). Maybe the apps are geared towards specifically helping drivers avoid DUIs but I can't say without looking at all of them.
Apple's not allowing nudity in apps is one thing, these types of apps are a completely different matter. Yes, maybe it does expose some inconsistencies with Apple's process but that also might depend on whether you agree or not with Apple's stance against apps that contain nudity. You can access all the nudity and porn you want (unless it uses Flash) from your iOS product, just not directly in an app.
Slashdot Mirror
Your response should be widely reproduced by the media to calm down all this hysteria. The problem is that Apple will have to at least settle this out of court. Privacy is important but knee-jerk lawsuits should be thrown out of court.
"We know the information is being sent to Apple."
No we don't because it isn't. It is stored locally. Location based services are sent to Apple but that's a different matter.
Years of formal education correlates moderately with intelligence. Whether or not our measurement of IQ is valid is a different question but the "popular" use of "more educated" does have to do with intelligence, at least as measured by IQ tests.
With the Nexus S you get the good version(s) of Android. Many other phones never get good updates to their OSes. Many others are also cumbered by bloatware and changes by the hardware manufacturer. Your particular phone is one main reason you like Android so much. I like Android too but there are some significant problems with it, some of which are due to manufacturers that are not as good as Apple is in providing OS updates.
Mod the parent 'Funny'. We all know that specs mean everything. Besides, those specs don't "smoke" the iPad. It looks pretty similar other than a smaller screen and better cameras. More RAM doesn't mean much because apps are designed to use much less RAM than what is in the tablet.
That's the only way to compete with Apple. I guess once the tablet apps in the Android Marketplace(s) get built up more there might be some incentive there but right now without a (significantly) lower priced product, it is really hard to compete with Apple's iPad.
That's something different. You can turn that kind of logging in iOS too. This is a different type of tracking that Android might or might not have.
National Defense is part of the Constitution. Healthcare isn't. I'm not saying it's unconstitutional, but defense spending definitely is Constitutional.
"the health care in UK and Canada is a billion times better than in the US"
Not remotely. There are a lot problems with both (including that the systems are unsustainable - both the UK and Canada are privatizing health care more and more because they cannot afford to keep up what they have).
Other countries get to spend less because the U.S. spends more. But you can't just look at total money spent; you have to look at it as a % of GDP at least.
We could spend less certainly but at least defense spending is something the Constitution states that the government must spend money on.
And yet some of us (including myself) make our living doing just that - virtually slicing the brain (images of it) into sections and seeing how areas of the brain relate with behavior. Some of us (myself included) look at not just the discrete areas but also the "wiring". Don't worry, the wiring maps of the brain are in the works too.
I can play this game too but I'll outdo you. My Web goes to 11. Web 11.0. ;)
The Democrats are tax-and-spend whereas the Republicans are don't-tax-but-spend-less-but-still-too-much. Almost all of the massive increases in spending have come since 2006 when Democrats took over Congress. I'm not saying Republicans are off the hook but they do not spend more than Democrats do (generally). Congress is in charge of spending - the President can influence it but Congress has control.
I don't disagree; I was just pointing out that most MDs don't do research even if they are partakers of research. One problem comes in fitting science and math into their medical education. There just isn't time - there are too many medical courses to take. It would be great to do during a residency though (if it was in lieu of some clinical responsibilities).
Medical doctors don't receive a background in math and statistics because most MDs do not do research. An MD is a clinical (professional) degree, unlike a PhD. A math and statistics would help but frankly, most would never use it.
As an academic, I edit Wikipedia whenever I see glaring errors in articles about things for which I have a specialty. There are articles that I could contribute but realistically, when it comes down to working on my research or contributing to Wikipedia, I do my research first. It's not elitism - I really like Wikipedia - it's being practical. I have a job to do first. There are a number of articles I want to write but I haven't taken the time to do it yet.
Now I don't feel so bad about my ISP. I've been running it for a while now too. http://tinypic.com/r/2j5z120/7
Here is part of the method: "Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay... Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow." (Book of Mormon, Alma 32: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32.17-43?lang=eng#16).
I've done that and have that experience. First you have to want to believe. Then you need to act on that belief. You have to have faith first if you want to know. As part of this process you also need to read the scriptures, which include the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and do this:
"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:3-5: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.3-5?lang=eng#2).
The method thus far is want to believe. Act on that belief, read the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon), remember the mercies of Jesus Christ, really think about them, then pray to God in the name of Christ with a sincere heart, real intent, with faith in Christ. Then you will feel the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and know that what you have read and what you are doing are true.
It's simple but you have to be willing to do it just like that. That's the method, or at least a portion of it. If it came across as preachy, that's the way it is. I've done all that and have the evidence provided by God's Spirit that it's true. I've seen other things, miracles if you will, but Slashdot really is not the forum for sharing those experiences. I've seen this process change people's lives, all for the better.
There are other experiments that can be done but the process I wrote is the start and then you can go from there. You might ask, where's the knowledge - t
You're misinterpreting circulation with quality. If you want the classic counter, look at Fox News. They have more viewers than other TV news channels but is their quality that much better? [I'd at least argue that it's no worse in quality but I don't watch any TV news so I can't really say].
At best only 30% of variance in homosexual behaviors is explained by biology (and that number is not as high for women). That leaves most of the behavior due to other causes or factors. I've done the literature search myself but the summary of it on Wikipedia is pretty accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
You cannot compare homosexuality to race. The comparison to Christianity is apt though because that by and large is a choice, or at least not biologically determined (although there now is some genetic evidence supporting religious beliefs - meaning that someone's tendency to be religious appears to be partially genetic). As a Christian, I certainly would not be offended by a "Cure a Christian" app.
If it's okay to say that "being overweight is a result of poor choices" (obesity at least is partially explained by genes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Genetics), why isn't it okay to say "being homosexual is a result of poor choices"? Note, I'm not saying that, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
What evidence would it take to convince you? Is there anything I could ever say on Slashdot that would convince you?
If you are anything like me then the answers to those questions are: Personal experience; no. Personally, I don't find philosophical arguments for the existence of God helpful (yes, some are clever but and thought-provoking but so is science). I like real evidence. However, the evidence I have cannot be conveyed to you, it's based on a hypothesis you have to be willing to test yourself. Would it be nice to email you evidence? Yes, but unfortunately that's not how it works ([I know the counter arguments: yes, really convenient, isn't it? It's certainly a nice "out" from providing evidence, huh?]. Does that mean that I have no evidence, as you say? Not at all. You cannot say I have no evidence just as I can't say anything about you.
Could I send you evidence that I love my wife or children? No, pictures or lists of deeds or even their testimonies under sworn oath of "Yes, dogmatixpsych does love us" will not work. I might tell them I love them or I might do things for them that they interpret as motivated by love but I could simply be misleading them. So where is the evidence of my love? Is it tied completely to my actions and words? Some people argue that but I find that insufficient because I know that people can be dishonest and that what they do is not always what they believe. I also find it problematic to completely operationalize things like emotions. Observable and measurable behavior is great (and important evidence) and it certainly supports the idea of my love but it's not the entire picture; it's necessary but not sufficient. But I do love my wife and kids. You don't have to believe me but you also might not believe me even if I could produce evidence of it.
Furthering this discussion is useless. I would not believe the way I do without personal experience that verifies the truth of it. This is not knowledge I can convey to you but you could know for yourself whether what I know (or, believe I know) is true or whether I'm simply delusional, dishonest, or just misguided (or maybe all three). The scientific method will not work in this case (although some of the philosophical foundations of it apply); in order for you to find out whether or not I really am delusional you have to be willing to try a different method (one that involves faith, prayer, and a lot of work) but one with real results.
I'm not dodging your request for evidence; I just cannot transfer it to you but I can tell you more about how you can verify what I claim I have as evidence yourself by having it yourself. That's much better than me telling you. Yes, I could provide examples of some of what adds to my evidence but what is the real, strongest evidence is internal and no amount of other evidence that I can provide would work.
I think this is a fairer answer than you'd get from many other people because there's no "trust me"; it's all, "You can know for yourself", you just have to be willing to do the experiments yourself.
It might appear circular but it certainly is not solipsistic. I am a materialist; I believe that the external world exists and can be known (that's one reason I'm a scientist). I also was not making an argument, I was merely setting up the philosophical structure upon which a rational discussion of the existence or non-existence of God might be built.
In any case, let's substitute pink unicorns. Person X says, "I have seen a pink unicorn." Can person Y, who has not seen a pink unicorn, say, "Pink unicorns do not exist"? Yes, person Y can say that but how does person Y know that? Has he omnipresently checked the entire universe and thus ruled out the existence of pink unicorns?
Now let's say that person Z enters the picture. Person Z says, "I have seen a pink unicorn." Person X says, "That's great! The pink unicorn I saw looked like such and such." Person Z says, "The pink unicorn I say did not look like that." Person X replies, "Oh, maybe you saw a different one or maybe you did not really see one." Person Y chimes in, "You both were hallucinating." Person Z states, "Maybe, but it was very convincing."
So who is right? Is the person who has not seen a pink unicorn right? Do pink unicorns not exist? Maybe but maybe not. Are the two people who have seen (or at least claimed to have seen) pink unicorns right? Maybe, maybe not.
Let's say that there are now 80 billion people who have not seen a pink unicorn and 1 person who has (or, at least claimed to have). Who is right? Are the 80 billion who have not seen correct? Maybe, maybe not. Is the 1 person wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Can the 1 person have a fully rational discussion with any of the 80 billion who have not seen a pink unicorn? Probably not. Does that make the 1 person irrational? Not necessarily.
I know that's a lot of non-commital language but that's the nature of empiricism (used in the broader, experimental sense and not necessarily in the sense-based sense).
Now, what if the 80 billion people say to the 1 who saw a pink unicorn (again, at least claimed to see), "OK, we're willing to believe you if you can prove its existence." The 1 replies, "Good, here is how you do it. Go to the Ural Mountains, hike to the top of Mount Narodnaya, spin around 3.5 times, and you will see a pink unicorn." Most of the 80 billion say, "You are crazy" and don't do it. Some say, "Ok, we'll try it" and then go and do it. They all come back and say, "We have seen a pink unicorn. The 1 was correct." The rest of the 80 billion say, "There are no pink unicorns. We have done scientific experiments and never have seen evidence of pink unicorns." Those who have seen say, "You're not doing the correct experiments; the 1 told you the process by which you can verify the truth of his claim but what you've been doing will not work. This does not mean that his claim is not true, it's just that some of the methods you are trying are not suited to the question. A discussion of your claims of the non-existence - or, even if you want to remain agnostic about the matter - of pink unicorns and our claims of their existence, at least the existence of one of them, can really never be rational and fully productive until you try "
That example might be severely flawed (there are some flaws: I could have expanded and added in that the pink unicorn might be invisible so you can't see it, you have to experience it in other ways; that would lead on to another discussion about the nature of knowing, which is too long for this reply - philosophers have been debating this for 1000s of years). It might even seem completely fanciful, but I find this an extremely helpful argument (not the pink unicorn one, the broader one you were referring to) because it lays a groundwork of reproducibility. I claim X. I came to know X by doing Y. What does an experimentalist do? The experimentalist goes, "Ok, if I do Y, I can verify whether or not X is true." So what if the experimentalist does Y and doesn't find X? Does that rule out X? No, it doesn't. Does it mean there
My "in that same vein" comment was completely sarcastic. But as numerous other people have explained, there are legitimate uses of the apps. I'm not saying either way if I support them but I don't think the government should step in just because the apps could be used for wrong. It's fine to criticize Apple or Google or other companies for their app policies but the government is trying to be too heavy handed here.
I guess my sarcasm was too veiled. Next time I'll include a sarcasm tag when I include sarcastic remarks.
In that same vein, let's get rid of the internet because it could be used for illegal activities. Or, maybe Apple and Google could pull their browsers because those can be used for morally questionable or illegal activities.
Those apps can be used for completely legitimate activities, just because they could be used for something that's illegal or even just morally questionable isn't a great reason for pulling them from the App Store (and other marketplaces for mobile apps). Maybe the apps are geared towards specifically helping drivers avoid DUIs but I can't say without looking at all of them.
Apple's not allowing nudity in apps is one thing, these types of apps are a completely different matter. Yes, maybe it does expose some inconsistencies with Apple's process but that also might depend on whether you agree or not with Apple's stance against apps that contain nudity. You can access all the nudity and porn you want (unless it uses Flash) from your iOS product, just not directly in an app.