And they are right to be upset about no-knock warrants in non-violent situations. That's just not what we're talking about here.

I tend to agree with you pragmatically. Which means I think there should be a lot of government regulation of the app stores. Cause there are only two. And it's almost impossible for someone to compete with them (maybe MS over the course of 5 years and $5B).

So the app stores should have to play fairer, because the market cannot autocorrect. For instance, maybe Apple shouldn't force bundling of their IAP ecosystem? Or have it's rates limited?

Because they have the spectrum, and Google can afford to prepay for them to throw up a zillion towers. So those coverage maps will look really different soon. So that's good. Also, Google becomes a customer of theirs.

Bottom line, your question resolves to "Why would any company want to sell a bazillion units, albeit at much lower margins, to Google." And the answer is, a bazillion * small number = large number.

Net Neutrality means mandating that developers and services must create something that works on your dying platform?

Well, I mean, he never said that. (I know the article said he said that, but if you want to read what he wrote... It says that application and content delivery being platform neutral is an important principle to maintain a competitive ecosystem, and then echos a lot of the arguments for net neutrality.

And to some degree, he's right. Why does Windows Phone have such an uphill battle? No apps. Same for BlackBerry, and the new OS that Samsung just launched.

Now, there are a ton more technical challenges to ensuring all apps are automatically cross-platform compared to net neutrality. But, if it were easy and free, I would totally want that. And if it were a reasonable cost I would as well.

Bottom line, either we decide competition is good in the marketplace of cell phone OS's, in which case there is a definite benefit to reducing consumer locking, or we decide it's bad (for technical/interoperability reasons) and it makes sense to treat it like any other natural mono^H^H^H^H duopoly, with regulation of costs and fairness for all./p

How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.

The purpose of the amendment isn't to determine if global warming is real (and manmade) or not. It's to get congressmen to go on the fucking record as either (a) able to recognize science or (b) batshit crazy. So either you have to vote that it exists, and then lose a fucking stupid talking point/excuse not to do anything, or you have to go on record as a dumbass. Hopefully ambitions not to have "thought global warming wasn't real" dragged out in future elections outweighs desires to be "pure Republican"

I never quite understood why breaking up divisions like this makes any sense whatsoever. What's the benefit to considering the revenue that any particular division brings in? It seems like it will just lead to really bad assumptions like the above

It seems like divisions in general having their own budget seems... well strange.

the dorky looks and people freaking out because of privacy issues weren't an issue that we saw.

Because whenever I saw someone with Glass on their face, I avoided being in their eyeline. Apparently, I should have walked up to them and said 'Stop wearing a camera that in two years is going to live-stream your life, but more importantly, my life anytime we cross paths to Google, you fucking ninny. '

Seriously, you mentioned the things that bothered you. But the vast majority of people you bothered just got creeped out and avoided you.

Nearly every restaurant has had a security camera system recording 24/7 for a couple decades

Try going to a nice restaurant and not a McDonald's. At most, they tend to record the parking lot and entrance. Not the diners.

Nonsense, you have some expectations of privacy, even in public. You do have fewer expectations of privacy in a restaurant than in your home, but you have some. When you use the bathroom, you are in a "public" bathroom. Yet you have more expectations of privacy there. Why?

It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. (Justice Abe Fortas)

Students have civil rights. They may be intimidated into not exercising them, but they have them. And when students decide to exercise them, the courts enforce them.

Now, that said, schools have a lot more "legitimate government interests" then the government as a whole, and therefore can do things the regular government cannot (they are acting in the role of the absentee parents as well). But no, they cannot actually push forward to violate a student's rights.

Also, how nice you are about it. Not that social class, access to representation or manners should matter. But they do.

Politely refusing an order can often avoid being expelled/a police beatdown.

Which is why I never understood so many people's reactions to the police. They are humans. They are wrong. And if you're an ass they're just going to double down.

It doesn't always stop them proactively. It takes time for someone in power, who cares to rule it unconstitutional and order it stopped and reversed.

Imperfect, sure. But I don't know how else to handle situations of overreach.

t no language can stop people from writing unreadable programs

While true, languages can encourage people to either create readable or unreadable programs. And which a language encourages has a lot to do with what you're trying to do in it..

I'm not sure why they shouldn't prep a raid. I mean, I don't want them outside eating doughnuts while I'm wrestling with a guy with a knife. I want them to come in and taze the fuck out of him.

Wow, you really object to the term "seems like". To reiterate what I said: a legitimate belief that they are rushing to the aid of people are being accosted by an armed intruder doesn't seem like a taking advantage of the slightest opportunity. And your response is "seem like" has a crazy low burden of proof, so even if I live up to it, you don't care.

Fine. Please replace "doesn't seem like" with "isn't beyond the shadow of a doubt" or whatever phrase you prefer.

Keep in mind, in the case we are discussing, the police believe (due to technical flaws in the the phone system) that someone inside the house called 911 and asked for assistance fighting off armed assailants. It's a situation I want them to take seriously.