Indeed there is. You must've glossed over it in the article, since the article makes it clear that the survey was conducted on the same day that the patch was announced, which means that developers hadn't yet had a chance to incorporate the patch, let alone submit an update to the app store. That's why 0% registered as being updated.

iOS developers can already mark critical updates as being in need of an expedited review. Unless the expedited review process is taking too long—and there's no evidence as yet that this is the case (see above for why 0% isn't alarming)—then we're inventing a problem where one does not exist. Note how the article provides users with the ability to poll more recent data, yet they don't present any of that data. The conclusion we might reach is that the results of the later surveys were less than newsworthy, so they've chosen to selectively report on the parts that make for headlines.

While I may not count myself on your side in this debate, I do think that your side has a number of decent arguments going for it. It's a shame that you've failed to provide any of them here.

A) You've lumped everyone who disagrees with you into the "we're superior creatures and can dispose of animals as we desire" crowd. That's a gross oversimplification of the alternative views to your own.

B) Claiming you have a moral footing is very different from actually having one. There are an abundance of well-established moral foundations on which you might have established your footing, but you didn't mention a single one. Instead, what you did provide was simply, "I'll believe what I want to believe and you can't convince me otherwise". Moreover, the moral discomfort you claim is undeniable would be denied by many here.

C) You're suggesting, without providing a basis for your assertion, that we're not treating the animals with enough dignity already, despite the fact that we have ethics boards in place to review research and ensure that animals are not being harmed unnecessarily, abused, or mistreated. Researchers are held to the highest standards and don't undertake their actions lightly. The only assumption we can make from what you've said is that you believe their use in research to be contrary to maintaining their dignity, suggesting that they are due a level of dignity that is typically reserved for persons.

D) Despite that, you acknowledge that they are not entitled to personhood. If non-persons are entitled to the dignity of personhood, then where do we stop? Are rhesus monkeys due the dignity of personhood? Rats? Leeches? Plants? Tree bark? Dirt? Water? Not only have you failed to establish a moral footing for your beliefs, you've actually established your beliefs on the side of a slippery slope.

Again, I do think that there's a case to be made for why we shouldn't use animals in lab tests, but saying that we're entitled to our opinions and that it won't change your unexplained "moral footing" is not the way to go about making your case.

I switched to DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine a few weeks ago to give it a second shot, since I wasn't a fan of it back when it debuted. This time around is quite a bit different from the first time. I've still got a few quibbles, but by and large it's a solid service with results that are excellent, and it's a worthy replacement for Google Search.

I suspect that most of my quibbles stem from my decades-long familiarity with Google Search, rather than from inherent problems in DDG, so the more I use it, the more I'll forget those quibbles. Plus, you can always use the "!g" flag in your search to pull up the Google results on a one-off basis, though I'm finding that I'm already doing that less often than I did a few weeks ago.

They already have started doing that...to mixed results. See: Arrested Development season 4.

But yes, resurrecting shows that were mishandled to begin with is a great way to attract people to their medium, especially since once you get them there, they're likely to get hooked on the low price and massive amount of content that can fill idle time (of course, if you're looking for something specific that's newer, you're probably better served with a rental service like Amazon or iTunes). I was a Netflix user before the original content started, and it's been a nice bonus, since as they branch out more with it, they hit more and more areas of interest for me. House of Cards was up my alley, and Daredevil is one that I'll definitely be taking a look at.

Two points:
A) Leases get taxed. Consumption taxes (e.g. state sales tax or VAT) are derived in various ways from the value provided by/added to the goods or services being consumed. So, whether you lease or buy, you're being provided with something of value and will be expected to pay taxes on it.

B) You actually do own your phone. You either bought it outright in cash or else the contract you signed granted you ownership in exchange for a promise to stay with your carrier for the next few years. Either way, it's yours, so even if taxes didn't apply to leases, you'd still be paying taxes on your phone.

Because this is about whether or not a term is applicable, let's make sure we have the definitions straight, since I'm not convinced your use of the word "custom" or "customer" is applicable here (though I had never seen "custom" used that way before, so major thanks for prompting me to learn something new! :) ).

I went ahead and looked up dozens of definitions for both "custom" and "customer", and every single one of them mentioned some form of money or other valuable goods changing hands. They either said it explicitly (e.g. A customer (sometimes known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is the recipient of a good, service, product, or idea, obtained from a seller, vendor, or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration.), or they said it indirectly (e.g. defining "custom" as "business patronage", which of course refers to money being given, since that's what patronage refers to by definition). But the point is, they all said it.

Which is to say, we're being provided a set of services so that we can be served up as a product (we agree on that), but I would suggest that our receiving those services no more makes us a customer than a cow being fattened is a customer of the slaughterhouse doing the fattening. What makes someone a customer is their payment for the goods or services, but no such payment occurs here, so while we may be the recipient of their services and the user of their services, we are not their customer.

No. I wouldn't. The market share numbers are in some cases nearly an order of magnitude different. Suggesting Apple has a comparable hold on their markets has no basis whatsoever in reality.

Google's search market share: roughly 90%

Apple's global smartphone market share: roughly 10% to 20% (it varies based on iPhone launch dates)

Apple's music market share: roughly 30% for retail sales and 10% for streaming

I wish I could find more recent numbers for music sales, since I suspect the iTunes share of the overall music sales market is much lower now, what with streaming services knocking the legs out from digital downloads. It's also worth pointing out that, as one of the earlier links shows, Android makes up roughly 75-80% of the global smartphone market, so if you want to suggest that Apple has a monopolistic hold over the phone market, what does that say about Google, given that their share is roughly 4x greater?

You conveniently didn't quote the very next sentence of mine, which said, "I view being beholden to the laws to be very different than being beholden to the people making the laws." Yes, I left them out, but I did so purposefully for reasons that were explained.

As for the rest, we agree on the facts of the matter--that Congress can dissolve the FCC if it doesn't like what the FCC is doing--but we disagree on whether that fact is sufficient to make Congress the "boss" of the FCC, which is a matter of subjective opinion, since it comes down to our interpretation of what constitutes a boss and whether or not Congress is filling that role. You think so and I think not. As I said before, I don't think that either of us will convince the other of our viewpoint.

I'm not at all comfortable with the current screening procedure madness, but I'm far more comfortable when the TSA agent groping me is just as uncomfortable with the situation as I am. When they're taking pleasure in it, it's a good indication that the system has let us down.

I think this is going to be an "agree to disagree" situation.

I disagree with your assertion that Congress is "continuing to delegate that authority". They delegated it. Past tense. It's gone. Unless they take it back, it remains gone. There is no continual reliance on Congress to continue delegating their authority. As such, I stand by my statement that there is no reliance on Congress at all. If Congress disappeared tomorrow, the FCC could continue its operation, which wouldn't be possible if there was a reliance on Congress.

And I feel as if pointing out that Congress can change the laws to govern the FCC is a bit pointless. After all, the same is true for everyone in the country, yet we wouldn't consider Congress to be our boss, even though we'd agree that the laws have authority over us. Similarly, I would agree with you that the FCC only exists at the whim of Congress, in much the same way that my home only remains mine at the whim of the local/state/federal government not exercising eminent domain, but again, it's a question of what the default is if no purposeful action is taken. Should the government not take action, I remain an independent homeowner, just as the FCC continues to exist.

In terms of who I would say that the FCC is answerable to, I'd suggest it's to the laws establishing its mandate, the laws expanding its powers, and the courts who interpret those laws. Maybe it's playing semantics on my part, but I view being beholden to the laws to be very different than being beholden to the people making the laws. And contrast that with Congressional oversight, where Congress is definitively in the driver's seat and bossing around whoever they are overseeing. Those they oversee, they definitely are the bosses of. But those they make laws for? They legislate for them, not boss them.

I dunno...does that explain my stance a bit better? Again, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Is it a contradiction that your parents aren't your bosses, despite establishing you and granting you life? Of course not, because their whole purpose in raising you was to produce an independent person capable of sustaining itself without a reliance on them for its continued survival. And just because we might be able to imagine a horror film-esque scenario where they attempt to kill you, that doesn't make them your boss, does it? (if you answer in the affirmative to that rhetorical question, then we'll have to agree to disagree)

Likewise, just because Congress can dissolve the FCC, it doesn't make it the FCC's boss. The FCC is self-funded through regulatory fees, has been granted authority to act independently, and does not rely on Congressional support for any aspect of its continued operation. Absent Congressional involvement, the FCC will continue on just fine, just as you presumably would continue on just fine absent parental involvement.

Neither the ability to create nor the ability to destroy makes you the boss of something, nor does it make it answerable to you.

Except that the so-called security expert is being accused of doing two of the three things the parent poster said.

1) He was as anonymous as possible. The lottery ticket was provided by a corporation in Belize that was claiming the prize via a New York-based lawyer.
3) He allowed as much time as possible to pass. The ticket wasn't claimed until hours before it was set to expire, nearly a year after the drawing.

Despite allegedly taking those steps, he's been caught.

I get that, but why put it in a phone? Gorilla makes great glass, but you don't see them making phones just to show it off, ya know? Are they hoping Google will market this thing next to Cardboard?

I just don't get it.

Yup. I realized my mistake about 20 minutes later. Thanks for the correction!

No, it doesn't. The FCC is an independent agency of the United States. While it may have been established and granted its authority by Congress, and while it may fall under the Executive Branch, it answers neither to the President nor to Congress, except inasmuch as the President nominates individuals to fill vacancies for commissioner seats and the Senate confirms them.

Oh, sure, and that's a fair point that I entirely agree with. That said, what I was getting at is that Congress is getting involved this time around because there are major political contributions influencing decisions, and if you use those links I provided to see how much the companies you listed have been contributing, what you'll quickly find is that Google is the only one in the ballpark of the telecoms. Facebook is barely a blip and Netflix isn't even listed. These ISPs are pumping massive amounts of money into Washington to buy votes, and it's working.