If the men have a significant response rate, then just maybe that means the problem is YOUR QUESTION IS TOO VAGUE, rather than both genders experiencing sexual issues.

Wow, how unscientific can you get? You've decided on what you want the result to be and you're discarding data that doesn't fit.

Sexual assault is really, really common. It's not just another word for rape, it covers any unwanted sexual touching. I had a woman I didn't know grope me as I was leaving a club last week. That's sexual assault. You may think that it's harmless - I wasn't particularly bothered by it - but regardless of severity, it's still sexual assault.

Apple has so many sweetheart deals with the US gov that it's not funny, mostly in the area of non-compliance with tax code or outright tax evasion.

Can you substantiate this? Every time somebody has said this to me and they've gone into specifics, it's been bullshit.

Just the fact that Apple is allowed to flaunt the anti-trust laws is a good example of why Apple (and shareholders) benefit from spying.

Same here. Which anti-trust laws? Be specific.

I don't believe a fucking word. They'd throw a baby off a bridge for a $2 bump in their stock price.

How would providing data to the USA government raise their stock prices? If anything, it would lower them.

You don't really have to trust Apple to do the right thing here. If - as you say - they are only motivated by profit, then look at what is more profitable for them. Their business model doesn't depend on access to their customers' personal data and habits. Google, on the other hand, makes use of their users' personal data and habits, however benignly you choose to judge that.

Basically, privacy is a competitive advantage Apple have against their biggest rival in the mobile market. If you think they are only motivated by profit, then the reasonable conclusion is that they will act to preserve their customers' privacy rather than disclose it.

You're massively overreacting to a biased headline. What is meant by "Apple locks NFC to Apple Pay" is simply "Apple have only provided APIs for Apple Pay so far".

This is pretty standard practice with new Apple hardware features.

Bluetooth? Originally developers couldn't access that at all, only the higher-level gaming APIs used it.

Touch ID? Again, developers couldn't access that at all to begin with, but iOS was released yesterday and that introduced an API for developers to use it.

The camera? Originally developers could only tell the system that they wanted a photo. Now we've got fine-grained control over shutter speed, etc.

Apple have a habit of introducing hardware features then providing a third-party API after they've had a chance to see it deployed at a large scale. If you are a long-time iPhone user, you've seen them do this time and time again. The fact that there isn't an API for it on day one doesn't mean that they are trying to lock it away.

Apple haven't said that they will open-source Swift. The only thing they've said so far is that they've been concentrating on getting it to 1.0 first and haven't made a decision about open-sourcing it yet.

You can set a bit such that the phone will only download new purchases over wifi.

And how many users do you think knew that they needed to do this prior to the album being released?

FFS, I wish people would at least attempt to avail themselves of the facts before spouting off like this.

You don't have to switch off automatic downloads of new purchases over cellular connections because it's switched off by default.

Not really. GCC is inconvenient in several ways. See this comparison for details. Most of them are technical, but a couple are related to the license being GPL. Clang and LLVM are "truly free software" as well, so Apple clearly aren't averse to "truly free software".

Some has contributed a nontrivial amount of work to LLVM and especially the clang project.

To be clear: Apple aren't just a contributor, they created Clang and employ one of the LLVM project's founders to work on LLVM, Clang, and Swift.

Half of it doesn't make sense and the rest is factually inaccurate. For instance, Apple won't open-source Swift because people don't want to buy cheap iPad clones? Huh? The foundation of Swift began in the open-source world? Nope.

Any article like this that doesn't mention Apple are the primary driving force behind the open-source LLVM/Clang tools is missing a big part of the puzzle. Apple have a track record of working on this sort of stuff openly once it gets to production quality.

Prime Music does not shove songs onto your phone using your data plan.

By default, Apple does.

Nope. Automatically download purchases using your data plan defaults to off. If it used your data plan, it's because you went into Settings and switched that option on.

If this album is 100 Mbytes at AT&T's roaming price of $19.95 per megabyte, this is going to cost me $1,995.

It's not going to cost you anything unless you went into Settings > iTunes & App Store and told it to use mobile data for automatic downloads. That's off by default, which means it only performs these kinds of downloads if it's connected to the Internet by WiFi.

If you buy a product from Apple, it's not really yours.

It's not about the product, it's about the account. People with "download new purchases automatically" switched on aren't forced into it by Apple, it's a user preference. The problem here is that Apple marked the album as purchased for their iTunes account, and that kicked off the normal download that happens when the user deliberately buys music.

It's a side-effect of how the system is supposed to work according to the user's preferences. It just fucked up badly because it wasn't designed with this use-case in mind.

The user getting the album downloaded automatically is just a symptom. The real problem is that instead of setting the price to free, Apple added it to people's iTunes account automatically. It's really got nothing to do with a product "not being yours" at all. It's working exactly as the user set it up to work - the problem is with the account, not the product.

I think you've misread "not much to mention" as "not much that is unprecedented". These are two very different things. There's a lot to mention about the iPhone 6. You yourself have already mentioned quite a bit about it.

Why would any intelligent creature want anything to do with us?

If we found lower forms of life on another planet, would we roll our eyes at them and ignore them? Or would we be fascinated by them and study them?

there's not that much to mention about the iphone6 except nfc.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

it costs less for apple to make the 6 than what it cost for them to make 5 when 5 came out. much less.

What's your source for this? The profit margin on the iPhone 6 is lower than for earlier iPhone models at the time of release.