The problem with this argument is that there isn't really a price difference between smart and dumb TVs anymore. While the failure point argument is valid, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you never use the smart features then those parts are not going to have a high failure rate.
More importantly, if you do buy a smart TV and chose not to use its features you will want to make sure you spend some time with the remote in the store. You'll want to either check it out in a store that doesn't have wifi or that allows you to disable it on the TV to test it out. Find out how well it works as a simple screen. Is it quick to switch between inputs? Is the remote good enough or does it at least support using a Harmony replacement? Are interfaces slow because the software on it is too heavy?
Basically, I'm advocating that you just don't care what features the TV has that you don't use and instead find the cheapest set where the features you do want to use work well. If that set has smart features, don't use them and you probably won't have an issue.
I'm not sure having more than one option is necessary because we have hundreds of institutions and any one of them could try this while I'm sure many would stay with the system they have. I also don't think it's necessary for the author to list more solutions than the one he favors, if there are other alternatives out there let other editorials sing their praises. This doesn't give you only one choice, it gives you a choice between the proposed system and the status quo.
Further - no viable light bulb replacements will work with dimmer switches (Which my house has many).
If you restrict this to cheap CFL or first-generation LED bulbs then the statement is true. But a simple search of Amazon for "dimmable LED bulb" will return several different brands, including the brand Feit that I have in my dining room that work perfectly with the dimmer switch in it. Further, they were cheap enough that if they last twice as long as the incandescent bulbs they replace they'll still come out cheaper.
I don't want to convince you to start using LED bulbs again, but the lack of dimmable bulbs is not a good reason to avoid them.
"This week, however, Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp have filed for appeal and seek to reverse the ruling."
This isn't quite right. The case is between Oracle and Google, the other companies have no standing. Instead, Microsoft, EMC, and Netapp have filed an amicus brief in support of Oracle. They're all companies who stand to benefit from Copyright protection on their APIs.
They're not being overruled. The law in the US is allowed to stand and is completely unaffected by this. Instead, because the US has broken a treaty Antigua no long must abide by US Copyrights, which are considered foreign law to Antigua. It doesn't harm democracy that another country is allowed to govern itself. Why should the US law be preferred to Antigua's?
The war on drugs is only part of it. Mandatory sentencing extends beyond drug charges. Many gun violations have mandatory sentencing as well, which is in part because of the war on drugs and in part because of the proliferation of guns. Very few people are in jail due to a few grams of marijuana, that wouldn't be enough for intent to distribute. But yes, our prison industry has done very well for itself, that much is true regardless.
I use my N7 every day. I have a profile for my son, but I only bother to let him use it when we go on trips. I think it's a little under-powered for some games, but I would actually shy away from games in this situation. The second generation N7 seems to fix the issue of being under-powered, and it's still cheap enough to be a safe bet for kids.
I agree with you on taking the device away being the best form of control, but I also think that's a bad solution in this case. You don't want a device that needs to be taken away being your main form of communication with your child. That gives the other parent an excuse to control when and how you communicate. I don't know exactly why this dad can't see his son very often (and I won't buy the claims made by AC in other threads), but it's probably best to avoid any conflict if possible. Though, I suppose I wouldn't condone some of the specific stuff the OP mentions, like any plans for this child to take a smartphone to kindergarten.
Google really does need to improve parental controls. Apple's system not only provides a better solution for parents, but also for schools. I think part of the problem is that Apple profits off device sales, but Google only profits off of device use, so anything that restricts the use of the device may harm Google's ability to make money off of it.
When my son was 4 I gave him my Droid Incredible, which was deactivated when I upgraded. He liked it, and would play angry birds sometimes. He also took pictures (the camera isn't great but it's better than pretty much any kid's camera available) and listened to music on it. It was pretty impressive the way he customized the device, too.
My friend gave his son, who is a little younger, an iPod Touch and an iPad around the same time. I know his son uses his devices more than mine.
Contrary to the bulk of these responses, both children were up to the task of having and caring for a modern touchscreen device. You'll want to slap on a good case, and you need to know you can trust your child with it, but they're fine.
As for the recommendation... Well, this is an area where Android is playing catch-up with iOS. iOS has lots of parental controls so you can lock down default apps and prevent installation of unauthorized apps. I don't think either OS is particularly easier to learn, but the ability to control some aspects of the OS might make this an easier sell to the child's other parent, or just easier to monitor for you. If you get an Android device, I suggest you get one that can use the user profile features in Android 4.3 (it was added in 4.2 but there's more control in 4.3.)
However, I'm not sure a phone is really necessary. In fact, I think a phone would be more likely to be dragged around when not needed and more easily lost. It's more likely to become a nuisance. Since your son won't be with you, you have to consider the people he will be with. You don't want the device to become a problem and be taken away.
I would suggest an older device, this way it's less of a loss if it's broken or lost. At this point, you could easily get an older iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. A first generation Nexus 7 isn't a bad choice either. I'd go with one of the tablets, personally. They're better for video chats.
This is likely a maneuver against such tax-sheltering movements. By taxing consulting you remove some of the incentive to use consultants versus having in-house employees. Not much, but it's there. Chances are if your consultancy wants to do business with an MA company they will be subject to this tax on their services.
What's missing from the article is a comparison of actual sales numbers. The RIAA members are bringing less revenue in but selling more music. That's because people are paying less and digital suppliers are taking a larger cut than traditional retailers. That's what the whole digital revolution was really about, people reacted not just to free music, but to the greed and abusive pricing models of the industry.
Another piece that's missing from the article is that independent music sales now make up a far larger portion of the industry. While some of these numbers are likely to be included in a report like this, many of them are not because the independent artists are not members. The overall music industry may well have eclipsed 1999 revenue a few years ago, but we wouldn't know because only the label revenues are counted.
In short, I think you're right. The industry pines for the days when buying a copy of their works required a physical copy, not just because of bundling though.
Oddly, I read this and thought the exact opposite. Most of the deals I've seen on Slickdeals since Black Friday have been in the 50- to 80-cents-per-gigabyte range. The latest deal, posted just yesterday, had an Intel 180GB SSD for $100 after rebate. That's 55-cents-per-gigabyte. That's only one deal site, so I'm sure there's other deals that I've missed.
The store doesn't matter so much as the price. Where you shop has become less important than how you shop. If you're only focusing on a few retailers, and not leveraging the Internet to comparison shop and crowdsource deal opportunities, then I'm sure SSD prices are still quite high.
And yet, none of that pertains to this treaty at all. There's not even a need to defend the US and its actions here, because this entire argument is a derailment of the primary one: whether or not the US should sign this treaty. Instead we're ranting about completely unrelated treaties on topics that hold no bearing to this discussion. The only tidbit of the entire rant we can apply is that the US does not always consider itself beholden to treaties it signs.
If we apply the only relevant part back to the actual topic what are we left with? Well, I would say that your standpoint is a great argument against signing this treaty. This is because any effort to hand control of the core systems that support the world wide web must be binding and complete. If the US is not going to honor those then what will happen when we have competing regulatory agencies and systems? I don't think it will be pretty.
It's interesting that the only useful nugget of that rant seems to work in favor the US actions, considering the rest of the rant is against it.
I think the biggest difference is the amount of integration that the factory systems now have. For instance, in one of my cars the stereo controls the bluetooth system, and to my understanding there is not an aftermarket head unit that supports this. If I choose to put an aftermarket head unit in my car I forfeit the built-in hands-free bluetooth and steering wheel controls. For other vehicles this is even more of an issue: some are integrated such that much of the vehicle's functionality is built into the same interface. Switching out components to support newer technologies is not going to work on such vehicles. I wouldn't want an aftermarket head unit that can't control my digital HVAC settings.
Another difference is that the technologies you listed were largely application-specific technologies with set standards. Smartphones are complex systems with few set standards. Yes, the individual features that these phones support may have standards (emphasis on may), but the phones themselves likely have little more than a defacto standard and it is the manufacturer's/OS developer's whim on when those will change. The iPhone changes much more rapidly than a music-specific format does.
This is no different than the Westboro Baptists that go around protesting at military funerals. They can get away with it it because it's not threatening anybody, and that's why it is the unfortunate side of acceptable Free Speech.
WBP is half "church" half legal machine. They know the law and they work within it. They have to be very careful because they will be arrested and punished if they overstep their bounds at all. To that extent, WBP members have been arrested and I'm sure that members will be arrested in the future.
It is very common to want legal justice to enforce social norms, as is the case here and with the WBP protests. In fact, many laws are enacted to do just that. If you're going to openly eschew social norms, say by making a highly inflammatory video, then you are wise to make sure there is no way that you can be punished for it, as the WBP do. This guy clearly did not do that, and his rap sheet makes it clear that he is something of a habitual fraudster. The prison door was open and waiting for him before he did this and that was spelled out in his agreement. Should we now be weeping for him because he provided an easy excuse to push him through it?
Freedom of speech is so often used as an excuse to avoid any sort of punishment. Freedom of speech is not, and never will be, freedom from consequence. There is plenty of legal precedent for consequences to speech. You can be fired for certain speech. You can be jailed for certain speech. In this case, the consequence of his speech is that it caused media, and later prosecutors, to look into his background and expose that he was in violation of parole. He is not excused from his existing probation limitations because he created something that is constitutionally protected.
And, since I find what he created to be abhorrent, I will gleefully celebrate his further incarceration.
The tax wouldn't be as effective as the ban. The ban was needed to push the industry forward and enable them to be profitable making the newer, more efficient bulbs. The tax would need to be exorbitantly high for cheap-to-produce incandescent bulbs to be as expensive as the more efficient bulbs. If the price isn't adjusted enough for competition then no manufacturer could invest in the infrastructure to produce the new bulb, it would be too risky, and thus adoption would be slowed. The most telling part of this: this legislation was drafted with the help of the industry.
Moorhead said industry representatives were closely involved in the legislative process to develop the new efficiency standards and would never have supported a ban of incandescent bulbs. The companies, as well as the legislators who drafted the bill, were keenly aware that the new standards could be met through the development of halogen incandescent light bulbs, he said.
It's also worth noting that, while current opposition to the "ban" is primarily from Republicans, the bill was passed by a Democratic Congress but signed by a Republican President. So, the bill is not anti-consumer. It isn't anti-industry. It isn't particularly partisan, either. Now if we're lobbing complaints around we should perhaps worry about the mercury content of the CFL bulbs that are now making their way in larger quantities to landfills, at least there's some small amount of legitimate concern to that.
Nothing's stopping Google+ from offering a secondary ID you can become, while Google still knows who you are.
A brief read of the patent tells me that this is exactly what Google has patented. It's a system in which a single identity can be used to generate anonymous secondary ones. In that case, Google, and anyone able to subpoena them, would know who the anonymous secondary identity is but third parties wouldn't be privy to the link between accounts.
Uh, "default app store" does not mean Google's Play store. It means the default app store for the phone in questions. If Google cuts Acer off then Acer could team up with Amazon for the default app store on their phones. Thus Amazon would earn more money because their store and apps aren't bundled on many phones right now.
I don't think it's fair to lump the two groups together. While I will agree that both groups are petty and immature, I think there is a demonstrable difference in the zeal and desire of birthers versus whoever added the brown noser tidbit to Wikipedia.
The first difference is intent. The Wikipedia entry was made before this announcement, as opposed to the birther's claims which didn't surface until the President was at least the presumptive nominee. The Wikipedia entry doesn't reflect well for Representative Ryan. The supposed claim by the birthers would, if it had any veracity at all (hint: it doesn't and never did) disqualify him completely. The intent is not merely to smear the President, as one might think the claim about Ryan is intend, but to disqualify him for his mere personage.
The second difference is zeal. Again, this is merely an edit to a page made well before Ryan was involved directly in the race for President. Meanwhile, the birthers have been at this for the last 4 years.No amount of contrary evidence has stopped the birthers. They've filed lawsuits in multiple states and wasted countless tax dollars on their nonsense.
The third difference is hate. Birthers are more of a hate group than anyone who would put this on Mr. Ryan's page. Nobody likes a brown noser, unless perhaps its your rump causing that nose to be brown. Meanwhile, birthers are hateful racists that are determined to "other" anyone who does not fit the "traditional" mold for American leadership. As others have stated, Mr. Romney's citizenship was never questioned. Neither was Mr. McCain's. The difference is that some believe there should be an unconstitutional religious test for the presidency and that President Obama's skin isn't the right color. Yes, racism is childish and stupid, but it is a particularly hurtful type of childishness and stupidity. There is not a history of enslaving, killing, raping, and dehumanizing brown nosers, instead we promote them to middle management.
The last difference is whom is advancing the issue. The person who put this on Wikipedia did not do so as part of a conspiratorial movement. For all we know it was an old classmate poking fun. There was no fanfare about this until someone removed it for political reasons. Thus, the ones seeking to deny Ryan's status as a brown noser are making this into an issue, rather than the ones presenting that status. This is very different than birthers, who advanced the issue and were generally ignored until their petty cries and expensive lawsuits became too annoying (and the President saw a chance to win a news cycle which might have otherwise gone to other things). So far the ones being petty in this issue are the Ryan supporters who think this matters.
So, sure, you can say the two groups have similar properties but I think lumping them together denies how much dumber birthers truly are.
You're right, Obama's place of birth gives us an excellent opportunity to examine areas of Constitutional law that are commonly misunderstood. For example, where he was born means absolutely nothing because the citizenship of his mother is not in question. So, like George Romney - Mitt's father, who was born in Mexico - President Obama is a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born. The rest is racism and xenophobia.
As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders. When Biden was picked it wasn't particularly important to note that he's a gaff machine, except in the personal context of how others will judge him. Either way, if it is verifiable and people are interested in the information as a part of his profile then it should meet the minimum standards for inclusion in Mr. Ryan's Wikipedia page.
The simplest answer is that Apple has their own retail space, which is likely the top location for buying their products. They get to dictate that experience and others selling their products must follow. Google has the Play store, but if they ever want the Nexus to be a success it must be displayed at big box retailers where potential buyers can try it out. As it happens, big box retailers like packaging that is difficult to open but attractive otherwise. It's a lousy theft deterrent, but they prefer it to having extra security measures to prevent open box theft. Still, Google should probably have omitted some of the plastic seals for direct sale tablets.
I doubt it's an ad or a distortion. It's common for a smaller, more committed user base to be happier with a product. There's a lot of ownership bias. At this point most people have at least a clue what G+ is, and the ones who use it know that they're dealing with a smaller user base. They're happy with it despite its flaws and lack of ubiquity. It shouldn't be surprised.
The slowing of FB adoption is the bigger story. It probably doesn't mark a shift toward G+, but it may be that Facebook is at the upper bounds of users interested in its service. For my part, I didn't close my FB account but I've moved almost all of my social networking activity over to Twitter. I wanted to like G+ but none of my social circles use it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this argument is that there isn't really a price difference between smart and dumb TVs anymore. While the failure point argument is valid, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you never use the smart features then those parts are not going to have a high failure rate.
More importantly, if you do buy a smart TV and chose not to use its features you will want to make sure you spend some time with the remote in the store. You'll want to either check it out in a store that doesn't have wifi or that allows you to disable it on the TV to test it out. Find out how well it works as a simple screen. Is it quick to switch between inputs? Is the remote good enough or does it at least support using a Harmony replacement? Are interfaces slow because the software on it is too heavy?
Basically, I'm advocating that you just don't care what features the TV has that you don't use and instead find the cheapest set where the features you do want to use work well. If that set has smart features, don't use them and you probably won't have an issue.
I'm not sure having more than one option is necessary because we have hundreds of institutions and any one of them could try this while I'm sure many would stay with the system they have. I also don't think it's necessary for the author to list more solutions than the one he favors, if there are other alternatives out there let other editorials sing their praises. This doesn't give you only one choice, it gives you a choice between the proposed system and the status quo.
Further - no viable light bulb replacements will work with dimmer switches (Which my house has many).
If you restrict this to cheap CFL or first-generation LED bulbs then the statement is true. But a simple search of Amazon for "dimmable LED bulb" will return several different brands, including the brand Feit that I have in my dining room that work perfectly with the dimmer switch in it. Further, they were cheap enough that if they last twice as long as the incandescent bulbs they replace they'll still come out cheaper.
I don't want to convince you to start using LED bulbs again, but the lack of dimmable bulbs is not a good reason to avoid them.
"This week, however, Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp have filed for appeal and seek to reverse the ruling."
This isn't quite right. The case is between Oracle and Google, the other companies have no standing. Instead, Microsoft, EMC, and Netapp have filed an amicus brief in support of Oracle. They're all companies who stand to benefit from Copyright protection on their APIs.
They're not being overruled. The law in the US is allowed to stand and is completely unaffected by this. Instead, because the US has broken a treaty Antigua no long must abide by US Copyrights, which are considered foreign law to Antigua. It doesn't harm democracy that another country is allowed to govern itself. Why should the US law be preferred to Antigua's?
Too bad they didn't patent it, they'd have yet another reason to sue Google and all it surrogates.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-burden-google-expands-use-of-the-double-irish/
The war on drugs is only part of it. Mandatory sentencing extends beyond drug charges. Many gun violations have mandatory sentencing as well, which is in part because of the war on drugs and in part because of the proliferation of guns. Very few people are in jail due to a few grams of marijuana, that wouldn't be enough for intent to distribute. But yes, our prison industry has done very well for itself, that much is true regardless.
Good call. We have hundreds of millions of guns here in the US and we have the lowest incarceration costs in the world... oh wait.
Well at least we never have armed gunmen attack public forums... crap, that's not quite it either.
I use my N7 every day. I have a profile for my son, but I only bother to let him use it when we go on trips. I think it's a little under-powered for some games, but I would actually shy away from games in this situation. The second generation N7 seems to fix the issue of being under-powered, and it's still cheap enough to be a safe bet for kids.
I agree with you on taking the device away being the best form of control, but I also think that's a bad solution in this case. You don't want a device that needs to be taken away being your main form of communication with your child. That gives the other parent an excuse to control when and how you communicate. I don't know exactly why this dad can't see his son very often (and I won't buy the claims made by AC in other threads), but it's probably best to avoid any conflict if possible. Though, I suppose I wouldn't condone some of the specific stuff the OP mentions, like any plans for this child to take a smartphone to kindergarten.
Google really does need to improve parental controls. Apple's system not only provides a better solution for parents, but also for schools. I think part of the problem is that Apple profits off device sales, but Google only profits off of device use, so anything that restricts the use of the device may harm Google's ability to make money off of it.
When my son was 4 I gave him my Droid Incredible, which was deactivated when I upgraded. He liked it, and would play angry birds sometimes. He also took pictures (the camera isn't great but it's better than pretty much any kid's camera available) and listened to music on it. It was pretty impressive the way he customized the device, too.
My friend gave his son, who is a little younger, an iPod Touch and an iPad around the same time. I know his son uses his devices more than mine.
Contrary to the bulk of these responses, both children were up to the task of having and caring for a modern touchscreen device. You'll want to slap on a good case, and you need to know you can trust your child with it, but they're fine.
As for the recommendation... Well, this is an area where Android is playing catch-up with iOS. iOS has lots of parental controls so you can lock down default apps and prevent installation of unauthorized apps. I don't think either OS is particularly easier to learn, but the ability to control some aspects of the OS might make this an easier sell to the child's other parent, or just easier to monitor for you. If you get an Android device, I suggest you get one that can use the user profile features in Android 4.3 (it was added in 4.2 but there's more control in 4.3.)
However, I'm not sure a phone is really necessary. In fact, I think a phone would be more likely to be dragged around when not needed and more easily lost. It's more likely to become a nuisance. Since your son won't be with you, you have to consider the people he will be with. You don't want the device to become a problem and be taken away.
I would suggest an older device, this way it's less of a loss if it's broken or lost. At this point, you could easily get an older iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. A first generation Nexus 7 isn't a bad choice either. I'd go with one of the tablets, personally. They're better for video chats.
This is likely a maneuver against such tax-sheltering movements. By taxing consulting you remove some of the incentive to use consultants versus having in-house employees. Not much, but it's there. Chances are if your consultancy wants to do business with an MA company they will be subject to this tax on their services.
What's missing from the article is a comparison of actual sales numbers. The RIAA members are bringing less revenue in but selling more music. That's because people are paying less and digital suppliers are taking a larger cut than traditional retailers. That's what the whole digital revolution was really about, people reacted not just to free music, but to the greed and abusive pricing models of the industry.
Another piece that's missing from the article is that independent music sales now make up a far larger portion of the industry. While some of these numbers are likely to be included in a report like this, many of them are not because the independent artists are not members. The overall music industry may well have eclipsed 1999 revenue a few years ago, but we wouldn't know because only the label revenues are counted.
In short, I think you're right. The industry pines for the days when buying a copy of their works required a physical copy, not just because of bundling though.
Oddly, I read this and thought the exact opposite. Most of the deals I've seen on Slickdeals since Black Friday have been in the 50- to 80-cents-per-gigabyte range. The latest deal, posted just yesterday, had an Intel 180GB SSD for $100 after rebate. That's 55-cents-per-gigabyte. That's only one deal site, so I'm sure there's other deals that I've missed.
The store doesn't matter so much as the price. Where you shop has become less important than how you shop. If you're only focusing on a few retailers, and not leveraging the Internet to comparison shop and crowdsource deal opportunities, then I'm sure SSD prices are still quite high.
And yet, none of that pertains to this treaty at all. There's not even a need to defend the US and its actions here, because this entire argument is a derailment of the primary one: whether or not the US should sign this treaty. Instead we're ranting about completely unrelated treaties on topics that hold no bearing to this discussion. The only tidbit of the entire rant we can apply is that the US does not always consider itself beholden to treaties it signs.
If we apply the only relevant part back to the actual topic what are we left with? Well, I would say that your standpoint is a great argument against signing this treaty. This is because any effort to hand control of the core systems that support the world wide web must be binding and complete. If the US is not going to honor those then what will happen when we have competing regulatory agencies and systems? I don't think it will be pretty.
It's interesting that the only useful nugget of that rant seems to work in favor the US actions, considering the rest of the rant is against it.
I think the biggest difference is the amount of integration that the factory systems now have. For instance, in one of my cars the stereo controls the bluetooth system, and to my understanding there is not an aftermarket head unit that supports this. If I choose to put an aftermarket head unit in my car I forfeit the built-in hands-free bluetooth and steering wheel controls. For other vehicles this is even more of an issue: some are integrated such that much of the vehicle's functionality is built into the same interface. Switching out components to support newer technologies is not going to work on such vehicles. I wouldn't want an aftermarket head unit that can't control my digital HVAC settings.
Another difference is that the technologies you listed were largely application-specific technologies with set standards. Smartphones are complex systems with few set standards. Yes, the individual features that these phones support may have standards (emphasis on may), but the phones themselves likely have little more than a defacto standard and it is the manufacturer's/OS developer's whim on when those will change. The iPhone changes much more rapidly than a music-specific format does.
This is no different than the Westboro Baptists that go around protesting at military funerals. They can get away with it it because it's not threatening anybody, and that's why it is the unfortunate side of acceptable Free Speech.
WBP is half "church" half legal machine. They know the law and they work within it. They have to be very careful because they will be arrested and punished if they overstep their bounds at all. To that extent, WBP members have been arrested and I'm sure that members will be arrested in the future.
It is very common to want legal justice to enforce social norms, as is the case here and with the WBP protests. In fact, many laws are enacted to do just that. If you're going to openly eschew social norms, say by making a highly inflammatory video, then you are wise to make sure there is no way that you can be punished for it, as the WBP do. This guy clearly did not do that, and his rap sheet makes it clear that he is something of a habitual fraudster. The prison door was open and waiting for him before he did this and that was spelled out in his agreement. Should we now be weeping for him because he provided an easy excuse to push him through it?
Freedom of speech is so often used as an excuse to avoid any sort of punishment. Freedom of speech is not, and never will be, freedom from consequence. There is plenty of legal precedent for consequences to speech. You can be fired for certain speech. You can be jailed for certain speech. In this case, the consequence of his speech is that it caused media, and later prosecutors, to look into his background and expose that he was in violation of parole. He is not excused from his existing probation limitations because he created something that is constitutionally protected.
And, since I find what he created to be abhorrent, I will gleefully celebrate his further incarceration.
The tax wouldn't be as effective as the ban. The ban was needed to push the industry forward and enable them to be profitable making the newer, more efficient bulbs. The tax would need to be exorbitantly high for cheap-to-produce incandescent bulbs to be as expensive as the more efficient bulbs. If the price isn't adjusted enough for competition then no manufacturer could invest in the infrastructure to produce the new bulb, it would be too risky, and thus adoption would be slowed. The most telling part of this: this legislation was drafted with the help of the industry.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/20/ameripac/conservative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/
Moorhead said industry representatives were closely involved in the legislative process to develop the new efficiency standards and would never have supported a ban of incandescent bulbs. The companies, as well as the legislators who drafted the bill, were keenly aware that the new standards could be met through the development of halogen incandescent light bulbs, he said.
It's also worth noting that, while current opposition to the "ban" is primarily from Republicans, the bill was passed by a Democratic Congress but signed by a Republican President. So, the bill is not anti-consumer. It isn't anti-industry. It isn't particularly partisan, either. Now if we're lobbing complaints around we should perhaps worry about the mercury content of the CFL bulbs that are now making their way in larger quantities to landfills, at least there's some small amount of legitimate concern to that.
Nothing's stopping Google+ from offering a secondary ID you can become, while Google still knows who you are.
A brief read of the patent tells me that this is exactly what Google has patented. It's a system in which a single identity can be used to generate anonymous secondary ones. In that case, Google, and anyone able to subpoena them, would know who the anonymous secondary identity is but third parties wouldn't be privy to the link between accounts.
Phones/Tablets/Whatever
Uh, "default app store" does not mean Google's Play store. It means the default app store for the phone in questions. If Google cuts Acer off then Acer could team up with Amazon for the default app store on their phones. Thus Amazon would earn more money because their store and apps aren't bundled on many phones right now.
I bet Amazon would be interested in providing the default app store.
I don't think it's fair to lump the two groups together. While I will agree that both groups are petty and immature, I think there is a demonstrable difference in the zeal and desire of birthers versus whoever added the brown noser tidbit to Wikipedia.
The first difference is intent. The Wikipedia entry was made before this announcement, as opposed to the birther's claims which didn't surface until the President was at least the presumptive nominee. The Wikipedia entry doesn't reflect well for Representative Ryan. The supposed claim by the birthers would, if it had any veracity at all (hint: it doesn't and never did) disqualify him completely. The intent is not merely to smear the President, as one might think the claim about Ryan is intend, but to disqualify him for his mere personage.
The second difference is zeal. Again, this is merely an edit to a page made well before Ryan was involved directly in the race for President. Meanwhile, the birthers have been at this for the last 4 years.No amount of contrary evidence has stopped the birthers. They've filed lawsuits in multiple states and wasted countless tax dollars on their nonsense.
The third difference is hate. Birthers are more of a hate group than anyone who would put this on Mr. Ryan's page. Nobody likes a brown noser, unless perhaps its your rump causing that nose to be brown. Meanwhile, birthers are hateful racists that are determined to "other" anyone who does not fit the "traditional" mold for American leadership. As others have stated, Mr. Romney's citizenship was never questioned. Neither was Mr. McCain's. The difference is that some believe there should be an unconstitutional religious test for the presidency and that President Obama's skin isn't the right color. Yes, racism is childish and stupid, but it is a particularly hurtful type of childishness and stupidity. There is not a history of enslaving, killing, raping, and dehumanizing brown nosers, instead we promote them to middle management.
The last difference is whom is advancing the issue. The person who put this on Wikipedia did not do so as part of a conspiratorial movement. For all we know it was an old classmate poking fun. There was no fanfare about this until someone removed it for political reasons. Thus, the ones seeking to deny Ryan's status as a brown noser are making this into an issue, rather than the ones presenting that status. This is very different than birthers, who advanced the issue and were generally ignored until their petty cries and expensive lawsuits became too annoying (and the President saw a chance to win a news cycle which might have otherwise gone to other things). So far the ones being petty in this issue are the Ryan supporters who think this matters.
So, sure, you can say the two groups have similar properties but I think lumping them together denies how much dumber birthers truly are.
You're right, Obama's place of birth gives us an excellent opportunity to examine areas of Constitutional law that are commonly misunderstood. For example, where he was born means absolutely nothing because the citizenship of his mother is not in question. So, like George Romney - Mitt's father, who was born in Mexico - President Obama is a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born. The rest is racism and xenophobia.
As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders. When Biden was picked it wasn't particularly important to note that he's a gaff machine, except in the personal context of how others will judge him. Either way, if it is verifiable and people are interested in the information as a part of his profile then it should meet the minimum standards for inclusion in Mr. Ryan's Wikipedia page.
The simplest answer is that Apple has their own retail space, which is likely the top location for buying their products. They get to dictate that experience and others selling their products must follow. Google has the Play store, but if they ever want the Nexus to be a success it must be displayed at big box retailers where potential buyers can try it out. As it happens, big box retailers like packaging that is difficult to open but attractive otherwise. It's a lousy theft deterrent, but they prefer it to having extra security measures to prevent open box theft. Still, Google should probably have omitted some of the plastic seals for direct sale tablets.
I doubt it's an ad or a distortion. It's common for a smaller, more committed user base to be happier with a product. There's a lot of ownership bias. At this point most people have at least a clue what G+ is, and the ones who use it know that they're dealing with a smaller user base. They're happy with it despite its flaws and lack of ubiquity. It shouldn't be surprised.
The slowing of FB adoption is the bigger story. It probably doesn't mark a shift toward G+, but it may be that Facebook is at the upper bounds of users interested in its service. For my part, I didn't close my FB account but I've moved almost all of my social networking activity over to Twitter. I wanted to like G+ but none of my social circles use it.