Okay, so now you've added R&D costs for a home-configuration device, and need to test and certify IT to make sure that it's not accidentally blowing out someone's ear drums, and you need to support it on dozens of different devices, and make sure it's secure (bluetooth hack + self configuring = your $1600 hearing aid is bricked). I'm sure that will drive down the costs of the device signifcantly.
The devices cost "over a thousand dollars" because the devices are complex pieces of integrated circuitry which have to operate continuously, reliably, in a hostile-to-electronics environment (the ear canal isn't exactly a cool, dry place), be comfortable, energy efficient, and safe, and last for a minimum of several years.
This argument that "these things should cost way less" is silly - they're NOT phones, they're NOT tablets, they're not laptop computers. They're highly specialized devices, selling to a limited sized market, with much stricter operating parameters, and high efficiency and safety requirements. Relax all of those, and perhaps you can make one cheaper - but it's going to be less reliable, less durable, less safe, and generally not a very satisfactory experience for someone who actually needs the device.
Awesome, sounds like you've got an amazing business model dialed right in, and you really understand what's involved in the design, construction, and operation of assistive devices. I can't wait to see your $299, high-quality hearing aid hit the market.
A trip to the optometrist for an eye exam will run you about $100 for visit + exam, as I understand it, too.
So, just the custom fitting + audiologist fees account for about 20% of the cost of the device.
Now figure the materials, audio, and electrical engineering that went into the device, the software that went into the device, and all of the testing and certification it undergoes. Now add sales & marketing costs, because it *is* a competitive market, and you need to advertise and reach your target audience. Now figure manufacturing costs in. Now add in profit margins for the company & retailers.
How hard is it to understand that there are HUGE numbers of costs that go into something like this? You want a $400 hearing aid, you're going to have no profits, no money to pay all the people designing and building the systems, and no money for testing and certification. You want a sustainable business model, these will be reasonably expensive devices.
Okay, so let's use your £100 price - that means custom fitting of the headphones on the low-price model mentioned in TFS is 10% of the price. (£100 ~ $160)
You're also trying to ignore the fact that nobody's claiming that the equalizer itself is not the expensive part - the time and expertise of the audiologist who tests YOUR hearing, and generates an auditory profile for YOUR hearing, and then enters it into the equalizer in the hearing aid is what you're paying for. How much does it cost for an hour of the specialist's time, and use of the fairly expensive testing equipment?
And if you had to pay a trained audio engineer to come to your house, test your room, and program the receiver for your room... the total cost of that receiver would be a hell of a lot more than $350, because you'd also have to pay for his time & expertise - which is what you're paying for with the audiologist who tests & configures your device. You don't just hand people an instruction manual and say "click this button and wait 30 seconds," with a hearing aid, because the device cannot customize itself to the individual's specific hearing profile, because it has no way of determining what that specific hearing profile *is*.
Miniaturization + selling into a fairly limited-size market CAN cost that much.
R&D costs to design the device are fairly fixed - whether or not you build 1 device, or a million devices, you still need to figure out how to fit the features you want into a unit of the appropriate size.
ASHA reports that an estimated 31.5 million people in the US have hearing loss of any kind. Of that, approximately 12.5 million people own hearing aids, and 11.1 million wear them regularly.
Compare that with the numbers of smart phones in circulation, then factor in that these are medical devices and thus require significantly stricter quality & safety controls and testing, and you might get a sense of why the per-unit share of R&D costs would be significantly higher in hearing aids than in smartphones.
Same applies for in-ear shooting protection: how many thousands or millions of these units do you think they sell each year, versus the size of the smartphone market? "in-ear hearing protection for sport shooting" is a pretty specific market niche. It's pretty regular for niche products to cost more - I'd be surprised if the people making the multi-thousand dollar sport shooting protection systems make and sell more than a few tens of thousands of them in a year.
And, hearing aids (at least, these expensive ones) are custom-fitted to the user's ear, and custom configured to enhance the specific frequencies of hearing loss the user has.
If your Android phone had to go through all of the quality & safety checks a "medical device" goes through, and required the assistance of an audiologist to custom-shape it to your hand & ear, and then test you & configure the device so that it enhanced the specific sound frequencies that you needed... they'd cost a lot more than "$99 with a 2 year contract," too.
Ignorant people often vastly overestimate their actual skill level and competence - they don't realize how much they don't know. Experts, conversely, tend to hedge far more about their competence, and underestimate their abilities, because despite being VERY knowledgeable, that knowledge gives them a very real understanding of exactly how little they TRULY know.
The arrogance talked about in TFS is generally a function of a reasonably intelligent person with little real-world experience. For the truly intelligent people, they're usually taught a valuable lesson in humility and modesty within a few years of encountering "real life" after college.
You're quite right - I started off in agreement with you. Where we differ is your closing:
and the masses, because they don't know better or don't care, will eventually be controlled by draconian corporations or governments, or both. Those of us who care enough to invent, create, and make the world a better place, will not.
In the context of your entire comment, it's a pretty clear delineation in your mind between "people who care about computers" as the ones who invent and improve and push the world forward, and "people who don't care about computers" who are simply mindless sheep who will never do any of that.
Most people aren't curious about their world, investigative of the way things work, interested in science, or even all that intelligent. Most people don't have a scientific mind or any desire whatsoever to use technology for any more than canned entertainment (which, by the way, is also what they use most of everything else in their lives for). Not because they're inherently a sub-species - but because they just don't care.
In fairness, it doesn't require a computer to be "curious about the world," "investigative of the way things work," "interested in science," or "all that intelligent."
Lots of doctors, lawyers, philosophers, and any number of other fields that aren't "computer scientist, mathematician, or physicist" are more or less computer illiterate beyond "type a document in word and click around in a web browser" - yet they're still pretty fucking smart.
It's a bizarrely egocentric world view that says "anybody not interested in the things I'm interested in, and not trained in the same fields I'm trained in, is just not that smart, and not that curious about the world." A computer is not the only lens through which to view the world, learn about the world, or investigate new areas of their respective fields.
Most people here would bristle at the suggestion from a lawyer that, "Most people just don't know anything about contract law and tort law, and frankly, are not that smart." Most people here would bristle at the suggestion from a doctor that, "Most people just don't know anything about neurological disorders and gene expression, and frankly, are not that smart." But that doesn't prevent the same commentary from being one of the most misused and arrogant aphorisms frequently seen here on Slashdot.
There's a limited number of the "advance tickets," which are sold at a price that will ensure the band & club don't take a beating and lose money putting on the show. If those sell out, the band will commit, and "general tickets" will go on sale. If a certain number of "general tickets" sell, then the band and club will also be sure they won't lose money, and so the "advance" tickets are refunded.
This basically gives the die-hard fans (those who would be paying for the advanced tickets) a reason to get out there and help publicize the show - if you get a bunch of your friends to go, you get a free ticket. If you don't, well, you still get to see the band you love, and maybe there's only 50 people at the show, and you get to have a drink with the band and talk to them for a bit before or after the show.
Frankly, I think it's a pretty interesting idea, and I think it offers the right incentives - free ticket for the fans who get in early and help publicize the show and get more people to buy tickets. But, even if the general tickets don't sell really well beyond the "advanced" ticket group, the people who got in early can still get to see the band play, because the band would have its travel & production costs covered.
Allowing them to see it for free is a formalized version of, "hey local fan, if you help us by putting up some flyers for our gig in your town, and telling all your friends and neighbors about it, we'll put your name on the list to get in free, or give you a free t-shirt, or a free signed copy of our latest CD, or maybe meet with you for a bit and take some photos with you after the show." Lots of small bands do this already; I don't really see much potential for abuse here.
Your point assumes many facts not yet in evidence.
1) That Martin was being "hassled"; 2) That Zimmerman was "mad"; 3) That Zimmerman had a "bad attitude"; 4) That 17 year old black kids have some sort of "natural response" to the prior 3 baseless assertions;
Care to substantiate any of those? Or should we just assume you're an idiot who's pre-ordained Zimmerman's guilt from the moment you learned he was carrying a gun, and that no facts or evidence to the contrary will ever move you?
Of course he should, because if there is no proof beyond any reasonable doubt, then he would (should) be declared not guilty of the charges, and set free. He will be convicted & sentenced only if the state makes the case beyond a reasonable doubt that what Zimmerman did was NOT self defense.
The investigation and trial is to determine if there was wrongdoing - if there wasn't any wrongdoing, the charges will be dismissed and Zimmerman will walk away free.
The *killing* is unfortunate. In the final analysis, a 17 year old kid is dead, regardless of the reasons. I consider that unfortunate, and I can still be sorry to hear of his death, even if it was a completely warranted act of self defense on Zimmerman's part.
If the shooting was self defense, I'd never suggest that Zimmerman shouldn't have defended himself... but the outcome is still tragic.
I'm curious where you go from "you should call the police if someone is following you and harassing you," to "you should call the police when someone jumps on you and starts beating you."
Because that's not what I wrote at all, and I'm curious how your reading comprehension went so wrong so quickly.
It would be quite unfair to all involved to rely on just a story alone, and a history of past behavior.
But that's all we have. So what would you rather they do - release Zimmerman, drop the charges, and forget about it? Or investigate, and determine whether or not it's reasonable to believe a crime was (or wasn't) committed?
I'd much rather see the investigation conducted, personally. I'd hate to think that our justice system will basically exonerate you by default - as long as you kill the other people who could contradict your account.
Unfortunately, "Turning around and swinging at someone who's annoying you," is not a proper response to any sort provocation, short of actual self defense against a physical assault, and the law in Florida makes no allowance for whether or not you were "provoked" into assaulting someone.
The "appropriate" response to someone following and harassing you is to call the police, and report the incident, and ask for a police officer to come and assist you. Not to turn around and coldcock your harasser.
According to Zimmerman's story, all he did was follow Martin so he could report where he was when the police arrived. If that is true, there is nothing illegal about that, even if Martin viewed it as "annoying" or "provocative."
You aren't going to see the defense showing any tweets like "brb gonna go beat up this neighborhood watch guy"
If they exist, you sure would. You do realize that the "defense" in this case refers to George Zimmerman's legal team, defending him against the charge of 2nd degree murder - of which he is innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... right?
If those tweets exist, they'd certainly be used. Just like if Zimmerman tweeted, "BRB GONNA GO MURDER A BLACK KID IN A HOODIE," the prosecution would be waving those around as well. In both cases, neither Zimmerman nor Martin were quite so obvious about their intentions. And in both cases, the opposing legal teams will seek to use past incidents, statements, and character witnesses to support their point.
The defense will try to cast doubt on the charge of 2nd degree murder by showing that Martin was a violent, antisocial kid who had a habit and a history of getting in fights and behaving violently. This would support Zimmerman's story that he was assaulted by Martin.
The prosecution will try to show that Zimmerman has a long history of racism, harrassment of minorities, and irresponsible gun handling, in order to make the idea that he assaulted Martin and then shot him for no reason other than that he was a black kid walking around the neighborhood.
If Martin has many incidents of fighting and run-ins with the cops and school authorities, and Zimmerman has a pretty clean history, then that pattern of behavior would support Zimmerman's claims. If Martin, on the other hand, is pretty much a choirboy, and Zimmerman has a long history of harassing minorities in his neighborhood, that would cast a lot of doubt on his "self defense" claims.
But the jury isn't being asked to decide whether an "assault with a deadly weapon" has occurred. They're being asked to decide whether or not the killing of Trayvon Martin was an act of self defense (and thus unfortunate, but legal under Florida law), or an act of 2nd degree murder (and thus illegal, and carrying with it a stiff prison sentence).
Since all we have is one side of the story, past patterns of behavior on the part of Martin & Zimmerman may be very relevant in assessing the evidence. *IF* Martin has a history of breaking into houses, getting into fights, etc. etc., then it makes Zimmerman's story - that he was standing there when Martin approached him and assaulted him - somewhat more believable. If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable. Just as past patterns of behavior on Zimmerman's part are relevant - does he have a history of racism? does he have a history of assault? does he have a history of waving his gun around like a maniac? All of these things would make his story LESS believable.
It's all relevant, because there simply aren't many facts beyond "deceased young black male, shot at close range" and the defendant's claim that "I was jumped, and acted in self defense." What a jury is being asked to decide is - is Zimmerman's story reasonable?
The irony is that it's NOT the algo traders that are typically dumping the stock "at any price". It's entirely possible for bad algorithms to exist that will continue selling any stock without any lower bound, but there's also a lot of algorithms that will note the movement of the stock price and start buying up the stock at those panic-depressed prices. You'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of humans willing to do the same - this means that the panicking humans are going to be taken advantage of by the big corporate wall street algobots who will buy the valuable stock up at fire sale prices, allowing the people operating those algos to profit obscenely off the panic.
Panic is an entirely human trait - it's the HUMANS, who are susceptible to panic at seeing their 401(k)'s take a significant dive, jumping in to sell off the share that's losing value while it still has *some* value. The algorithms are just looking at the numbers and continue operating based on the rules that were programmed into them.
As far as why this is legal, it is legal precisely because humans are susceptible to stupid stampeding herd blind panic. This was a mistake that triggered a rash of selling as people read the headline and said "OH MY GOD GOOGLE IS FAILING SELL SELL SELL GOOG." When you have a huge number of people doing that at once, the stock price drops quickly as the market is flooded with sell orders and buyers quickly dry up - telling everybody "stop, digest this information, and think about it" is a good thing - it blunts the impact of the panic, and makes people assess whether or not the news is REALLY cause for panic, after reading the entire statement, digesting it, and consulting with other references - not just seeing a headline and freaking out.
Frankly, anybody whose entire retirement plan is evaporating because of bad news at one company is investing stupidly anyway, and should use this as a MASSIVE wakeup call. A diversified portfolio is a cornerstone of a sound investment strategy, so any minor downturn like this, even if Google is actually struggling and its share price corrects to reflect that, should only impact a small segment of your investments.
Your $100/month subscription free is chump change compared to a multimillion dollar judgement and legal fees for copyright and DMCA lawsuits. They're going to take you offline first, and then review the case if you appeal, and most likely the review will say, "um yeah, just... sorry, we don't want the hassle. Your site stays offline."
Youtube has an incentive to do due diligence too: if they just take down all the videos on their site whenever somebody complains, then nobody will visit their site, and they won't get to advertise to visitors. Every time that video goes offline, there's some small set of users who will not be going to the site to watch it, and thus some non-zero number of ad impressions that won't be served, making Google some money.
"competing media players from itunes"? You can buy from itunes, and load those songs in any other media player that supports AAC format. You can buy from other stores, and load them easily into itunes (and thus into your ipod, ipad, itunes match, etc.)
You want a competitor for iCloud? Google drive. Dropbox. Amazon's storage locker service.
iMessage? Aol IM. MSN im. Sametime. Jabber. Yahoo IM. skype. A host of others.
iTunes cloud match - Google Play service, and I'm sure there are others.
You're free to implement your own service that will interoperate just fine - sell media files in mp3, aac, flac, alac, or other compatible formats. Nobody's stopping you, not even Apple. They have nowhere near a "monopoly" - or even, realistically, a "majority market share" in any of the markets you just described. The only way they are a monopoly is if you define "monopoly" so narrowly that every company is a monopoly by virtue of the fact that they are the ones who write their software and build their services. Oh noes, twitter has a monopoly on twitter! Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook! Toyota has a monopoly on Toyota-branded vehicles and parts! Whatever shall we do?!
I really don't think you've bothered to think through your point, because it's a LAUGHABLY inept attempt to prove some sort of monopoly status exists. And it fails on every level.
Apple does not have a monopoly that it is leveraging in one market to give itself an advantage in another.
It has no monopoly on mobile phones, or mobile phone applications, or mobile phone operating systems. It runs the App Store, and is free - until and unless it becomes a monopoly in the mobile space and runs afoul of antitrust regulations - to set its own terms & conditions on what products it will and will not sell in its app store.
Is it crappy that they do this? Yes, it'd be nice if they would open it up more and allow greater competition in apps & app stores. I think most people would stick with the App store simply because it'd be the default... but having the choice would be a nice thing.
But - Is it illegal? No. It's no more illegal than the fact that the local coffee shop will sell me a Pepsi, but not a Coke, and will also cheerfully recommend that I go to Starbucks across the street if I want a triple mocha half-caf venti soy cappucino with stevia - because "all we sell here is regular coffee, sorry."
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so now you've added R&D costs for a home-configuration device, and need to test and certify IT to make sure that it's not accidentally blowing out someone's ear drums, and you need to support it on dozens of different devices, and make sure it's secure (bluetooth hack + self configuring = your $1600 hearing aid is bricked). I'm sure that will drive down the costs of the device signifcantly.
The devices cost "over a thousand dollars" because the devices are complex pieces of integrated circuitry which have to operate continuously, reliably, in a hostile-to-electronics environment (the ear canal isn't exactly a cool, dry place), be comfortable, energy efficient, and safe, and last for a minimum of several years.
This argument that "these things should cost way less" is silly - they're NOT phones, they're NOT tablets, they're not laptop computers. They're highly specialized devices, selling to a limited sized market, with much stricter operating parameters, and high efficiency and safety requirements. Relax all of those, and perhaps you can make one cheaper - but it's going to be less reliable, less durable, less safe, and generally not a very satisfactory experience for someone who actually needs the device.
Awesome, sounds like you've got an amazing business model dialed right in, and you really understand what's involved in the design, construction, and operation of assistive devices. I can't wait to see your $299, high-quality hearing aid hit the market.
A trip to the optometrist for an eye exam will run you about $100 for visit + exam, as I understand it, too.
So, just the custom fitting + audiologist fees account for about 20% of the cost of the device.
Now figure the materials, audio, and electrical engineering that went into the device, the software that went into the device, and all of the testing and certification it undergoes. Now add sales & marketing costs, because it *is* a competitive market, and you need to advertise and reach your target audience. Now figure manufacturing costs in. Now add in profit margins for the company & retailers.
How hard is it to understand that there are HUGE numbers of costs that go into something like this? You want a $400 hearing aid, you're going to have no profits, no money to pay all the people designing and building the systems, and no money for testing and certification. You want a sustainable business model, these will be reasonably expensive devices.
Okay, so let's use your £100 price - that means custom fitting of the headphones on the low-price model mentioned in TFS is 10% of the price. (£100 ~ $160)
You're also trying to ignore the fact that nobody's claiming that the equalizer itself is not the expensive part - the time and expertise of the audiologist who tests YOUR hearing, and generates an auditory profile for YOUR hearing, and then enters it into the equalizer in the hearing aid is what you're paying for. How much does it cost for an hour of the specialist's time, and use of the fairly expensive testing equipment?
And if you had to pay a trained audio engineer to come to your house, test your room, and program the receiver for your room... the total cost of that receiver would be a hell of a lot more than $350, because you'd also have to pay for his time & expertise - which is what you're paying for with the audiologist who tests & configures your device. You don't just hand people an instruction manual and say "click this button and wait 30 seconds," with a hearing aid, because the device cannot customize itself to the individual's specific hearing profile, because it has no way of determining what that specific hearing profile *is*.
Miniaturization + selling into a fairly limited-size market CAN cost that much.
R&D costs to design the device are fairly fixed - whether or not you build 1 device, or a million devices, you still need to figure out how to fit the features you want into a unit of the appropriate size.
ASHA reports that an estimated 31.5 million people in the US have hearing loss of any kind. Of that, approximately 12.5 million people own hearing aids, and 11.1 million wear them regularly.
Compare that with the numbers of smart phones in circulation, then factor in that these are medical devices and thus require significantly stricter quality & safety controls and testing, and you might get a sense of why the per-unit share of R&D costs would be significantly higher in hearing aids than in smartphones.
Same applies for in-ear shooting protection: how many thousands or millions of these units do you think they sell each year, versus the size of the smartphone market? "in-ear hearing protection for sport shooting" is a pretty specific market niche. It's pretty regular for niche products to cost more - I'd be surprised if the people making the multi-thousand dollar sport shooting protection systems make and sell more than a few tens of thousands of them in a year.
And, hearing aids (at least, these expensive ones) are custom-fitted to the user's ear, and custom configured to enhance the specific frequencies of hearing loss the user has.
If your Android phone had to go through all of the quality & safety checks a "medical device" goes through, and required the assistance of an audiologist to custom-shape it to your hand & ear, and then test you & configure the device so that it enhanced the specific sound frequencies that you needed... they'd cost a lot more than "$99 with a 2 year contract," too.
Yep - it's the The Dunning-Kruger effect.
Ignorant people often vastly overestimate their actual skill level and competence - they don't realize how much they don't know. Experts, conversely, tend to hedge far more about their competence, and underestimate their abilities, because despite being VERY knowledgeable, that knowledge gives them a very real understanding of exactly how little they TRULY know.
The arrogance talked about in TFS is generally a function of a reasonably intelligent person with little real-world experience. For the truly intelligent people, they're usually taught a valuable lesson in humility and modesty within a few years of encountering "real life" after college.
You're quite right - I started off in agreement with you. Where we differ is your closing:
In the context of your entire comment, it's a pretty clear delineation in your mind between "people who care about computers" as the ones who invent and improve and push the world forward, and "people who don't care about computers" who are simply mindless sheep who will never do any of that.
And that's where you lost me.
In fairness, it doesn't require a computer to be "curious about the world," "investigative of the way things work," "interested in science," or "all that intelligent."
Lots of doctors, lawyers, philosophers, and any number of other fields that aren't "computer scientist, mathematician, or physicist" are more or less computer illiterate beyond "type a document in word and click around in a web browser" - yet they're still pretty fucking smart.
It's a bizarrely egocentric world view that says "anybody not interested in the things I'm interested in, and not trained in the same fields I'm trained in, is just not that smart, and not that curious about the world." A computer is not the only lens through which to view the world, learn about the world, or investigate new areas of their respective fields.
Most people here would bristle at the suggestion from a lawyer that, "Most people just don't know anything about contract law and tort law, and frankly, are not that smart." Most people here would bristle at the suggestion from a doctor that, "Most people just don't know anything about neurological disorders and gene expression, and frankly, are not that smart." But that doesn't prevent the same commentary from being one of the most misused and arrogant aphorisms frequently seen here on Slashdot.
There's a limited number of the "advance tickets," which are sold at a price that will ensure the band & club don't take a beating and lose money putting on the show. If those sell out, the band will commit, and "general tickets" will go on sale. If a certain number of "general tickets" sell, then the band and club will also be sure they won't lose money, and so the "advance" tickets are refunded.
This basically gives the die-hard fans (those who would be paying for the advanced tickets) a reason to get out there and help publicize the show - if you get a bunch of your friends to go, you get a free ticket. If you don't, well, you still get to see the band you love, and maybe there's only 50 people at the show, and you get to have a drink with the band and talk to them for a bit before or after the show.
Frankly, I think it's a pretty interesting idea, and I think it offers the right incentives - free ticket for the fans who get in early and help publicize the show and get more people to buy tickets. But, even if the general tickets don't sell really well beyond the "advanced" ticket group, the people who got in early can still get to see the band play, because the band would have its travel & production costs covered.
Allowing them to see it for free is a formalized version of, "hey local fan, if you help us by putting up some flyers for our gig in your town, and telling all your friends and neighbors about it, we'll put your name on the list to get in free, or give you a free t-shirt, or a free signed copy of our latest CD, or maybe meet with you for a bit and take some photos with you after the show." Lots of small bands do this already; I don't really see much potential for abuse here.
Your point assumes many facts not yet in evidence.
1) That Martin was being "hassled";
2) That Zimmerman was "mad";
3) That Zimmerman had a "bad attitude";
4) That 17 year old black kids have some sort of "natural response" to the prior 3 baseless assertions;
Care to substantiate any of those? Or should we just assume you're an idiot who's pre-ordained Zimmerman's guilt from the moment you learned he was carrying a gun, and that no facts or evidence to the contrary will ever move you?
Of course he should, because if there is no proof beyond any reasonable doubt, then he would (should) be declared not guilty of the charges, and set free. He will be convicted & sentenced only if the state makes the case beyond a reasonable doubt that what Zimmerman did was NOT self defense.
The investigation and trial is to determine if there was wrongdoing - if there wasn't any wrongdoing, the charges will be dismissed and Zimmerman will walk away free.
You're an idiot.
The *killing* is unfortunate. In the final analysis, a 17 year old kid is dead, regardless of the reasons. I consider that unfortunate, and I can still be sorry to hear of his death, even if it was a completely warranted act of self defense on Zimmerman's part.
If the shooting was self defense, I'd never suggest that Zimmerman shouldn't have defended himself... but the outcome is still tragic.
I'm curious where you go from "you should call the police if someone is following you and harassing you," to "you should call the police when someone jumps on you and starts beating you."
Because that's not what I wrote at all, and I'm curious how your reading comprehension went so wrong so quickly.
But that's all we have. So what would you rather they do - release Zimmerman, drop the charges, and forget about it? Or investigate, and determine whether or not it's reasonable to believe a crime was (or wasn't) committed?
I'd much rather see the investigation conducted, personally. I'd hate to think that our justice system will basically exonerate you by default - as long as you kill the other people who could contradict your account.
Unfortunately, "Turning around and swinging at someone who's annoying you," is not a proper response to any sort provocation, short of actual self defense against a physical assault, and the law in Florida makes no allowance for whether or not you were "provoked" into assaulting someone.
The "appropriate" response to someone following and harassing you is to call the police, and report the incident, and ask for a police officer to come and assist you. Not to turn around and coldcock your harasser.
According to Zimmerman's story, all he did was follow Martin so he could report where he was when the police arrived. If that is true, there is nothing illegal about that, even if Martin viewed it as "annoying" or "provocative."
If they exist, you sure would. You do realize that the "defense" in this case refers to George Zimmerman's legal team, defending him against the charge of 2nd degree murder - of which he is innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... right?
If those tweets exist, they'd certainly be used. Just like if Zimmerman tweeted, "BRB GONNA GO MURDER A BLACK KID IN A HOODIE," the prosecution would be waving those around as well. In both cases, neither Zimmerman nor Martin were quite so obvious about their intentions. And in both cases, the opposing legal teams will seek to use past incidents, statements, and character witnesses to support their point.
The defense will try to cast doubt on the charge of 2nd degree murder by showing that Martin was a violent, antisocial kid who had a habit and a history of getting in fights and behaving violently. This would support Zimmerman's story that he was assaulted by Martin.
The prosecution will try to show that Zimmerman has a long history of racism, harrassment of minorities, and irresponsible gun handling, in order to make the idea that he assaulted Martin and then shot him for no reason other than that he was a black kid walking around the neighborhood.
If Martin has many incidents of fighting and run-ins with the cops and school authorities, and Zimmerman has a pretty clean history, then that pattern of behavior would support Zimmerman's claims. If Martin, on the other hand, is pretty much a choirboy, and Zimmerman has a long history of harassing minorities in his neighborhood, that would cast a lot of doubt on his "self defense" claims.
But the jury isn't being asked to decide whether an "assault with a deadly weapon" has occurred. They're being asked to decide whether or not the killing of Trayvon Martin was an act of self defense (and thus unfortunate, but legal under Florida law), or an act of 2nd degree murder (and thus illegal, and carrying with it a stiff prison sentence).
Since all we have is one side of the story, past patterns of behavior on the part of Martin & Zimmerman may be very relevant in assessing the evidence. *IF* Martin has a history of breaking into houses, getting into fights, etc. etc., then it makes Zimmerman's story - that he was standing there when Martin approached him and assaulted him - somewhat more believable. If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable. Just as past patterns of behavior on Zimmerman's part are relevant - does he have a history of racism? does he have a history of assault? does he have a history of waving his gun around like a maniac? All of these things would make his story LESS believable.
It's all relevant, because there simply aren't many facts beyond "deceased young black male, shot at close range" and the defendant's claim that "I was jumped, and acted in self defense." What a jury is being asked to decide is - is Zimmerman's story reasonable?
The irony is that it's NOT the algo traders that are typically dumping the stock "at any price". It's entirely possible for bad algorithms to exist that will continue selling any stock without any lower bound, but there's also a lot of algorithms that will note the movement of the stock price and start buying up the stock at those panic-depressed prices. You'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of humans willing to do the same - this means that the panicking humans are going to be taken advantage of by the big corporate wall street algobots who will buy the valuable stock up at fire sale prices, allowing the people operating those algos to profit obscenely off the panic.
Panic is an entirely human trait - it's the HUMANS, who are susceptible to panic at seeing their 401(k)'s take a significant dive, jumping in to sell off the share that's losing value while it still has *some* value. The algorithms are just looking at the numbers and continue operating based on the rules that were programmed into them.
As far as why this is legal, it is legal precisely because humans are susceptible to stupid stampeding herd blind panic. This was a mistake that triggered a rash of selling as people read the headline and said "OH MY GOD GOOGLE IS FAILING SELL SELL SELL GOOG." When you have a huge number of people doing that at once, the stock price drops quickly as the market is flooded with sell orders and buyers quickly dry up - telling everybody "stop, digest this information, and think about it" is a good thing - it blunts the impact of the panic, and makes people assess whether or not the news is REALLY cause for panic, after reading the entire statement, digesting it, and consulting with other references - not just seeing a headline and freaking out.
Frankly, anybody whose entire retirement plan is evaporating because of bad news at one company is investing stupidly anyway, and should use this as a MASSIVE wakeup call. A diversified portfolio is a cornerstone of a sound investment strategy, so any minor downturn like this, even if Google is actually struggling and its share price corrects to reflect that, should only impact a small segment of your investments.
Your $100/month subscription free is chump change compared to a multimillion dollar judgement and legal fees for copyright and DMCA lawsuits. They're going to take you offline first, and then review the case if you appeal, and most likely the review will say, "um yeah, just... sorry, we don't want the hassle. Your site stays offline."
Youtube has an incentive to do due diligence too: if they just take down all the videos on their site whenever somebody complains, then nobody will visit their site, and they won't get to advertise to visitors. Every time that video goes offline, there's some small set of users who will not be going to the site to watch it, and thus some non-zero number of ad impressions that won't be served, making Google some money.
Are you having a stroke?
"competing media players from itunes"? You can buy from itunes, and load those songs in any other media player that supports AAC format. You can buy from other stores, and load them easily into itunes (and thus into your ipod, ipad, itunes match, etc.)
You want a competitor for iCloud? Google drive. Dropbox. Amazon's storage locker service.
iMessage? Aol IM. MSN im. Sametime. Jabber. Yahoo IM. skype. A host of others.
iTunes cloud match - Google Play service, and I'm sure there are others.
You're free to implement your own service that will interoperate just fine - sell media files in mp3, aac, flac, alac, or other compatible formats. Nobody's stopping you, not even Apple. They have nowhere near a "monopoly" - or even, realistically, a "majority market share" in any of the markets you just described. The only way they are a monopoly is if you define "monopoly" so narrowly that every company is a monopoly by virtue of the fact that they are the ones who write their software and build their services. Oh noes, twitter has a monopoly on twitter! Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook! Toyota has a monopoly on Toyota-branded vehicles and parts! Whatever shall we do?!
I really don't think you've bothered to think through your point, because it's a LAUGHABLY inept attempt to prove some sort of monopoly status exists. And it fails on every level.
Apple does not have a monopoly that it is leveraging in one market to give itself an advantage in another.
It has no monopoly on mobile phones, or mobile phone applications, or mobile phone operating systems. It runs the App Store, and is free - until and unless it becomes a monopoly in the mobile space and runs afoul of antitrust regulations - to set its own terms & conditions on what products it will and will not sell in its app store.
Is it crappy that they do this? Yes, it'd be nice if they would open it up more and allow greater competition in apps & app stores. I think most people would stick with the App store simply because it'd be the default... but having the choice would be a nice thing.
But - Is it illegal? No. It's no more illegal than the fact that the local coffee shop will sell me a Pepsi, but not a Coke, and will also cheerfully recommend that I go to Starbucks across the street if I want a triple mocha half-caf venti soy cappucino with stevia - because "all we sell here is regular coffee, sorry."