First, who do you think it was that wrote those anti compete laws in the first place? Giant ISPs

Second, who do you think is campaigning for decreased regulation? Giant ISPs

Third, what kinds of regulation do you think these people have in mind when they say they want less regulation? consumer protection laws, NOT anti competitive laws.

The best and most stable economies are tightly regulated.

I second the nervousness about the cloud, and would like to add my own trepidation about the closer tying of licenses to individual machines and subscription payments. $10 says that the so called free upgrade to windows 10 from windows 7 will entail a mandatory subscription a year after installing.

Dexter's Laboratory

You might be able to actually see an investigation here. HP is beholden to their shareholders, and shareholders don't like to lose money. Under US law they can actually sue the management of HP in this case.

The key point to take away here is that justice doesn't exist in the US UNLESS you have screwed over someone who is richer than you.

I just got a look at the vine b/c the site is blocked at my work. My thoughts are:
It was much closer than I thought, and that must be one tough barge.

What gets me most about this is the nonchalant attitude.

"yea we blew up the rocket and the barge, but no biggie. We'll do better next time"

I think that is why nerds get so exited over SpaceX. That attitude of not letting fear of failure dictate future actions.

It's official. Ross Ulbricht is trolling the government.

I spoke with someone who was involved in the process to determine jurors in highly technical cases, and the response was not promising. Essentially the first step of selecting jurors is to eliminate all candidates that have any technical or expert background because they can influence the other jurors.

The problem with that again is that it pressures me into using the Apple ecosystem. Apple is free to encourage me to use their other products and services, and many of them are quite useful, but if it is found that Apple has been deliberately gimping their hardware to pressure me into using their services then that is a legitimate anti trust issue. Personally I don't use any of Apple's other services, and I don't feel I should have to in order to do something as simple as update my OS.

Proving that Apple has been deliberately downgrading hardware to promote their services is probably impossible unless they find another video with Jobs being a dumb ass, but the limitations that I feel in their design still stand. And lets be honest. Packing a few more GBs into their $500 phones probably won't increase the cost in any meaningful way.

You are definitely right that they have taken steps to reduce the OS footprint, but I have a few issues with how their storage works:

1. The amount of space that they advertise doesn't include the OS and other apps meaning that if you purchase a device expecting 16GB to put music on, but learn that you have 12GB of usable space then that may cause me some annoyance in how I load my music and apps.

2. I believe another Slashdot article covered this but the total storage of apple devices in the first place tends to be rather low, and it was speculated that this is deliberate so that Apple can force people on to other services like iCloud to store their media which locks customers into their products.

3. On an 8 GB iPhone I had to delete every piece of media and almost every app just to be able to download the ios updates.

Even the example you give is still zero sum because the cap is what I am willing to pay not what I actually pay. If I am willing to pay 100$ a month on books, but I only spend 10$ on this service then your cap is still 100$ you just need to figure out how to get me to spend the rest.

The current model makes it easier to get me to my cap: ie make me buy more books, but that isn't to say that I can't b convinced to spend the other 90$ on other things like special edition hard copies, merchandise, etc etc. In either circumstance the limit of my expenditure is hard. I cannot/will not spend more than my cap, and that is were the article errs. The market is capped by willingness to pay and ability to pay like all markets, but it makes the assumption that what people are currently paying is the market cap, not what they are willing to pay.

It is very easy to increase the amount that people are spending but that doesn't increase the market cap only the amount of money in the industry. People will always want to spend less and that is the tug O' war of capitalism: figuring out how to get people to spend what they are willing to pay not what they are currently paying, and that is up to the publishers.

You are comparing the market to the buying habits of an individual here. Publishing has always been a zero sum game just like every industry ever because every market has a market cap. Regardless if one person spends more on books than another the size of the market still grows with the number of people and the amount they are willing to spend which is finite.

What this pricing model does is make the whales who buy tons of books worth less but it makes the people who normally spend less than 10$ a month on books worth a lot more, and there are far more people worth less than 10$ month now than there are people who are worth more than 10$. This will cause the value of each customer to become more similar because each customer is worth as much as their time not their wallet.

It is a new business model that could end up being very disruptive, but at the end of the day it is unlikely that it will seriously affect the market cap because that is what customers are willing to pay not just what are currently paying. In your example of getting a reader to read more it is easily doable under this model as well. encouraging people to spend more is what marketing is all about and that won't dry up because they discovered a cheaper service. All it will mean is that you will have to work harder to convince them to spend their money.

An apples to oranges comparison. Girls, like all children are forced to go to class, thus they naturally adapt (in this case they do so better than males), but choosing to join a club is an entirely different matter and takes into consideration far more than just the subject matter, namely personal enjoyment.

When you decide to engage in extra curricular activities ( what my original statement was referring to not the AP course ) you take into account all factors that affect your enjoyment including the prospect of being awkwardly hit on for being one of the only girls in the group. There is quite a bit of psychology around group dynamics involving a gender imbalance, and it rarely turns out well. Such pressures can be the tipping point that forces anyone out of an extracurricular program, not just women.

Imagine if you will, a scenario where you are given an opportunity to learn about a subject you truly love from one of the best experts in the field, but you would have to take the class with 10 of the most far right nut wingers imaginable. A classroom filled with Rush Limbaughs. Some would have the mental will power to ignore it and get some good out of the class and others will say hell no.

Granted that is an extreme example, but for a middle school or high school child who are not the most stable people to begin with they may choose to join their friend's clubs regardless of what they may truly enjoy and in the process find something different from STEM.

I can imagine the kinds of comments that are coming, but I have to say that I approve of these women targeted programs because I believe they do create an environment that encourages more participation. Most people feel comfortable around similar people especially at younger ages, and telling a girl that she will be in a class with other girls as apposed to a class filled with men could be the difference in her decision making.

Put another way, if a nerd was told they would be working with other nerds they would feel more comfortable trying to work in that environment because common background and common interests fuel conversation. Hopefully these women targeted programs will help some talented women on the fence to take the plunge.

I think you may be misunderstanding. The summary says that it is the engineered mice that could resist the sunlight while the normal mice became prunes. In this case the cream (more likely a shot) would be what allows you to stay out in the sun without using sunscreen at all.