Throughout history, when kids don't go to school they ended up working, usually to help out the parents or other family. So it is ridiculous to claim that keeping kids out of school removes people from the work force. It actually adds people to the work force.

Maybe you could argue that in the long run it reduces the level of education required to do more sophisticated jobs; but that isn't the case you made.

I've seen a few 3d movies now, and in my experience, you notice it for a few minutes and think "that's interesting", but if you are absorbed in the story you quickly forget that you are watching it in 3d. The point of watching a movie is to immerse yourself in the story. If you are noticing the 3d effects, you are not immersed, you are looking at the medium itself, not the story. Saying a movie was better in 3-d is kind of like saying "That novel was really good. The leather binding really made it better."

Because of that, and because it is extra bother to wear uncomfortable glasses, and extra expense for admission, I think 3d will prove to be a fad that settles down to a minimal sustainable level. It probably will never go away, but it will never take over either.

It seems most people are assuming that giving someone a perceptual capability that everyone else has would cause them to react to it the same way that everyone else does. But what if not? What if someone who lacks an ability to perceive something also has not developed a way of incorporating that sense into their thought processes, and if it is introduced later it causes them pain, confusion, or dysphoria?

For example, imagine someone whose eyes are very insensitive to light, and sees everything very dimly. They grow up with that perceptual weakness being normal for them. If their eyesight were suddenly "fixed" to normal sensitivity, they might experience unbearable brightness, to the point of pain, similar to a normal person looking into the sun. Imagine someone who grew up deaf to high-pitched sounds suddenly hearing them; maybe they would suddenly experience a cacophony of noise around them in everyday life that is so annoying and distracting that they have a hard time coping? So similarly, if someone who grew up colorblind is suddenly able to see a new color, but their brain has not developed to handle it, might they not be able to cope with the new stimulation in a normal way?

To be fair, the "drugs" claim was made by a school administrator. And he might be lying. Given the circumstances in this case, I believe the kid more.

Yes, a failure.

Screw that dumb scientific method thing, in which showing correlation is the first step you take when you think "I suspect that A causes B let us see if that is true".

Much better to just go and try and prove that is how it works without checking if it's even plausible in the first place.

> Right-of-way is an implied system, not a hard set of rules.

If I define a rule as something that carries a punishment when you violate it, then right-of-way is a hard set of rules. Even if your jurisdiction does not define it, your car insurance company most likely does. At least where I live, when a collision occurs, one driver must be at fault. Who's at fault is determined by right-of-way rules.

Some right-of-way rules in the laws are not highlighted as such, so they may be difficult to spot. For example, if a pedestrian gets killed crossing the road where he should not be crossing, provided that the driver is in compliance with the laws, the pedestrian is totally at fault thus the driver can go home-free.

Generally, if you're in compliance to laws in terms of passing, cutting lanes, signalling, turning, and stopping, you're in compliance with right-of-way rules.

> If someone decides to give up their right-of-way to you, then you are entitled to slowly and safely proceed to accept the right-of-way from the other motorist.

Although an intention to give up a right-of-way is easy to see, it is impossible to prove after an accident has happened. What if the other driver changes their mind, and you run into an accident as a result? Good luck proving that they have yielded their right-of-way.

When I decide to give up my right-of-way, I do it in very defined situations (like when 2 lanes must zipper-merge), and in a bounded manner. e.g. I limit myself to allow 1 or 2 cars, but no more, to merge in front of me at a busy parking lot exit to not agitate drivers waiting behind my car.

> If two motorists get in an accident because of right-of-way issues, most officers would at the very least give the driver with the right-of-way a warning to not insist on their right-of-way (as most states laws have a clause to this effect).

This is interesting, please cite some such laws - especially after you've said that right-of-way is an "implied system, not a hard set of rules". As far as I understand, insisting on right-of-way does not break any law.

The law is sharing-the-road codified. I believe one should not break the law, but also not do more than what the laws tell us to. The "above-and-beyond" thing, when applied to traffic laws, is a cause of a lot of accidents, and if people follows the rules as literally as possible and drive as much like robots as possible, I believe there'll be a lot fewer accidents.

Very simple you stated that users don't like the iPhone OS.
Well some people do not but a huge numbers of people do and it has changed the mobile phone market.
I can tell you that a lot more people don't like WinMO than iPhoneOS. Frankly a lot more WinMo users hate WinMo. Most are stuck because of some app they must have and are hopping that WinMO7 doesn't suck.
Taskmanager? I have not needed on on my iPod Touch. Now on my Android phone I do. I will not get an iPhone because of AT&T. But a phone shouldn't need a task manager.
The Cut and past is now and yes it dumb to leave it out.
All you other complaints have nothing to do with the OS.
No keyboard, removable battery, or camera are or where all hardware choices.
They do have a camera and a real GPS now BTW.
Not being able to install whatever you want is more a cultural issue. Apple offers a walled garden of apps. You have one place to look for them and only one place you have to market if your a developer.
It is a choice that frankly really seems to have worked well for the users and the developers for the most part.
But again that has nothing to do with the OS.
Just about the only problem I have with the iPhone OS is the lack of multitasking. Which I do find really frustrating.
The Palm OS does a great card with multitasking the the UI is every bit as good as the iPhone OS.
WinMo reminds me of Linux back before Gnome and KDE. Yes it works and you can do anything you want with it but it is just an ugly mess. The difference is that Linux was more stable.

You are missing the whole point. By interested party, he means anyone who has the power to log activity at the domain server (e.g. someone in a controlling company or a government). The DNS is a bottleneck, and someone controlling any DNS server in the chain can easily track all the sites you visit if the requests have a personal identifier like an IP in them. On the Iran point, it is about a controlling entity blocking certain users from a random site that it doesn't control, not a user being blocked by the site itself. Another example of a big danger is a targeted pharming attack by a hacker (maybe this could be called spear pharming, similar to spear phishing?)