A law has to be very, very wrong to have a moral mandate to break it. Most people breaking laws out of "principle" are just doing it because they find the law inconvenient. Laws and rules are the oil of social machinery. Don't be the sand in the crankcase.
I think you have a selective memory. Developers originally flocked to the app store because Apple was only taking 33%, not the 50% or more they were used to suffering from.
Additionally, it's not even about overhead. It's about supply, demand and what the market will bear. I hope you complain just as bitterly when you buy batteries. Do you have any idea what the markup is on those things?
"You put D first. Why do you hate R?"
Because R is just as bad as D. Not looking at the R world through rose colored glasses is a prerequisite for thinking clearly.
OK, I give. What was it that really eradicated polio then? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it wasn't fluoride in the water that did it either.
And from this site (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic):
"However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority."
I would be happier to go with the "republic" definition for my country.
"How about an entire ocean was suddenly parted so the good guys could get away and then collapsed again on the bad guys?"
Actually, that is plausible. I saw the proof of concept at Disneyland.
"Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead."
Not dead, just taking a deceptively deep sleep. In the US we still have the possibility of democratic action. So far. The problem is that people just don't participate because their lives are comfortable enough or they are too busy just trying to survive. They don't take the easy actions (voting and political participation) and then when pressed they feel they have to take the drastic actions (aiming guns at Federal officers in the dessert). It's stupid and it's not forward thinking, but that is just how human beings generally live.
I have a firewall
So I won't get jacked
My password's weak
So I still got hacked
"I just don't 'get' the ambiguous sexuality of apple products."
What? Oh, I get it. It's a joke. OK!
"...when they depreciated OpenSSL..."
I don't think you can claim OpenSSL as a write off on your tax form.
"...they can't touch me?"
Yes, they can. But only from left to right.
'However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...'
It's not about free speech. It's about not respecting someone else's privacy. It's about breaking an implicit trust.
Tell you what, if it's OK to post the pictures I say it should be mandatory that the real name of the person submitting them should be posted right alongside the image, in order that women everywhere could know who to avoid.
'Ah, because the metric for "spherieness" isn't at all subjective.'
That's true. It's not really subjective. Here's a neat little illustration/calculator to help you with the concept.
"...affects your biological health and circadian rhythm"
True, but in a 13 or 17 year cycle who is going to notice an hour?
"the fact that some transmission was not by rats does NOT imply
that no transmission was done by rats."
What it DOES imply is that no matter who does the research or what the conclusion there is going to be disagreement from armchair scientists and contrarians on Slashdot.
The best way to accelerate a Macintoy is at 9.8 meters per second per second.
