I can't digg up the original contract to check; but some of the stories state that they are going to Apple because the deal was to purchase 'iPad+software', as a packaged product, from Apple. By all accounts Pearson was the significant weak link (not a shock, that's pretty typical for them), while Apple's stuff suffered only from the fairly pitiful state of iOS management; but the school district didn't structure the deal as 'Contract #1, buy ipads, Contract #2, buy textbook apps'; it was a package, and their claim is that half the package was rotten and the other half is of little use to them without the underdelivered component.

Given that Apple is reputed to be a brutal and efficient taskmaster of its suppliers, I'd imagine that either the school district will fail, or Apple will gouge it out of Pearson; but to the best of my understanding there is logic behind complaining to Apple, given the terms under which the devices were purchased.

If you are working on the (probably bullshit) theory that these devices improve educational outcomes, there is a civil rights interest in ensuring that students who made poor prenatal choices still have the opportunity to get a decent education.

However, that assumption is under-supported(even if they were free, it's not news that electronic gizmos are good for slacking off with, so they might have a negative effect unless the school actually has a good plan in mind; and since they aren't free, they are being chosen to the exclusion of other possible educational aids), and if it doesn't happen to be true; then there isn't much of a civil rights case for access to toys. If anything, devices for slacking off probably amplify the effects of differing qualities of home life, since parental attention will have a major effect on how much slacking you can get away with.

The superintendent at the time 'resigned' over the controversy; but depending on the outcome of the FBI's ongoing investigation into the circumstances of the bidding process, he may or may not be looking at further consequences.

Pearson is a company that brings a sort of defense contractor vibe to the educational sector. They are huge, superb at landing contracts, excellent at writing contracts that promise somewhat less than they appear to; but not so hot on delivering, much less on time or on budget.

Anyone buying a zillion ipads for school children without realizing that they'll be using them mostly to screw around on the internet within about five minutes is certainly an idiot; and Pearson certainly can't take the blame for that; but their failure to deliver some curriculum slurry and a terrible textbook app or two within the agreed upon time? That's the sort of thing they do.

It would not much fail to surprise me if it wasn't done this way; but something like those seatback location/direction displays require relatively little data transfer(you wouldn't need more than the 4800 baud NMEA spew you'd get from a standard GPS device, and you could likely get away with less) and no responses from the seatback unit; so you could do everything you'd need over an isolated, intrinsically unidirectional, link.

Put the avionics on the emitter side of an optoisolator, blindly blinking out location and heading data, the controller for the seatback entertainment system on the receiver side, listening, and you get an arrangement where there simply isn't anything to attack at the software level(you could probably hose in flight entertainment for the entire aircraft one way or another; but boredom isn't very lethal); and where physical attacks might be possible; but (by choosing an optoisolator and the location of the interface between the critical and noncritical side) can be made quite difficult.

A lot of CEOs (a good example was Steve Jobs) will take token small salaries because most of their income is from their ownership in the company.

If he's pulling down $5 million a year from company stock dividends, is giving up a $1 million salary that big a deal?

No, it doesn't. Only that we have evolved into a species that has increased the survival rates by co-existing. Those who don't do what's detrimental to society get rewarded by a higher rate of surviving offspring. No divinity needed.

"Thou shalt not bring crocodiles to a pool party" is a self-evident law.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is not.

It also means that what's self-evident changes over time, and that supposedly "eternal" laws are doomed or detrimental in the long run.
This might be a win for civil law, where laws are re-interpreted based on the context and circumstances, and a bane for common law, where rulings encase the law interpretation.
Perhaps one day, tame crocodiles provide swimming support for children, and the self-evident law is no longer self-evident.
The "thou shalt not commit adultery" needs revision as we progress into an age where sex has no higher risk of propagating diseases and producing children than we want it to have.

Those are not religious rules. They are what TJ described as "self-evident laws", and precede the religions who have adopted them.

And besides, we don't even have absolute laws against theft and murder - only theft and murder that's not ordered by the government.

Why is that the question?
Can't we just drop tax heaven for religious reasons across the board?
If religious organizations do charity work, they'd still be eligible for those branches being exempt under current laws.

I'm just waiting for a church to re-launch the old religious custom of temple prostitution. Can't be taxed, because it's religious... Right?

No. Your inability to think doesn't warrant a citation.

You are mistaken. To quote IRS:

"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

They most certainly do define it from a tax perspective - you have to fit criteria set by our government.
See what IRS says about it.

No, that would be like saying '"two plus two equals five" is more correct than "two plus two equals three"'. I certainly don't want them to utter such stupidity either.

Not all belief organizations have a cash flow. There are a few - admittedly very few - that do not accept money from its members, do not pay, house or feed its clergy, and congregate in privately owned facilities.
Of course, the members may still be victims of a scam, but not a financial one. And they aren't scamming the government by paying their leaders tax-free dollars.

Indeed. If they had god-coin without the picture of (and support of) the emperor on it, it would be different.
But as long as someone wants to use coin backed by a government, they should have the same obligations to the government as anyone else using that coin.

I think a good solution would be to end all tax exemptions, including churches and charities, and instead increase the spending on causes that reduces the need for churches and charities.

Yes, and that is the problem. It is a religious rule. Religious rules becoming law is unconstitutional.