Well Citizens United says that corporations are people, so really there's no distinction.

Either you agree with the civil rights act or you don't, but the fact remains that it is in place to ensure that the "every man is equal" part of the constitution is upheld, hence the inability of a business to turn away black people. What this bill seeks to do is ensure that if homosexuality becomes a protected class that business owners who are bigoted won't be sued.

Also, your first sentence is a huge, huge non-sequitur. There is no "requirement to do business" to survive - you can work for someone else if you want to, and even have your religious beliefs upheld (for example, if you work in a store you can ask to not handle pork as a Jew or a Muslim). The fact that you think that if a bill specifically designed to protect religious people's ability to discriminate is removed means that "none of us have freedom" is just laughable.

Or they're limiting supply because supply is limited, which has been known for some time.

Of course, the click bait summary doesn't think that's a sexy enough headline, so they're going with the "exclusivity" angle.

If you walk into the Apple store and want one, an employee will walk you through buying one online fem inside the store, because they won't have the stock on hand to just be able to give you one right there due to a) the tight supply of the watch itself (mainly down to the screen) and b) the large number of combinations of strap.

Until the demand settles out, you'll have to order one online, which is exactly what Apple are setting up for. Either ahead of time and then pick up in store, or if you just walk in, they'll do it for you right there.

However "Apple employees will order a watch for you online if you go to the store because they won't have lots of stock on hand" just doesn't get those ad impressions roiling.

$3 metal band. lol.

Speck of gold. lol.

2/10, kid. Try harder next time.

Or the reverse - they don't have enough.

Their supply is constrained, which has been known for a long time.

I doubt it will sell as well as the iPhone (what could really?), but I am certain that demand will heavily outstrip supply, at least for the first couple of months.

What makes you think they haven't done that?

(hint: they have, but they're also selling them in Apple stores too).

They don't have enough of them, simple as that.

Until their supply chain levels out, they're constrained.

You don't think they really want to do it this way in an ideal situation right?

They want to do whatever will make them the most money, but they have to contend with the fact that they simply will not have enough supply for the first few months of sales.

The thing is, the law as signed by Clinton was also wrong, and he was wrong for signing it.

This Indiana law, which goes further than the Clinton law by some margin, is designed precisely to discriminate against gay people. The primary author of the bill has said so on the record.

How did this tripe get moderated "interesting"?

Unless by "interesting" the moderators felt "so divorced from reality as to be an interesting view into the out of touch mind".

That's all very well until you open a business.

Privately you can believe what you want, but if you run a business you have to follow various rules - for example, signs saying "no blacks" are typically frowned upon. As it happens, currently "no gays" is actually not illegal (making the indiana bigotry law unnecessary anyway).

You're not required to think the same way, you're just required to follow a certain set of minimum criteria when running a business that interacts with the public.

You can afford to pay any amount of medical expenses (for example, major heart surgery, serious trauma surgery etc) with cash on hand?

It's wager that you're something of an edge case.

Otherwise, I call bullshit on insurance "not providing anything [you] can't provide on your own".

Or do you mean your parents will pay?

Or are you just monumentally stupid enough to simply roll the dice daily by not having insurance and thinking you couldn't possibly get sick or be injured? and consider that a better position than actually having insurance (or access to universal healthcare if you live in any of the other developed nations on earth)?

Ah, so no argument then. I thought so.

Or, if we're going by your logic, the iPhone wins because it's the lightest. I mean, it can display a keyboard on the screen too so it counts.

How is it a clear criminal offence?

The law that the original article tried to "gotcha" her with went into effect years after she left office.

As far as can be determined there's no "clear" criminal offence here, unless the law is applied retroactively, in which case she's not the only secretary of state who is apparently subject to a law that wasn't in effect at the time of their "crime".

Leaving aside the playground-quality insult skills (given the low UID did you borrow your dad's /. account to post?), the claim that slashdot is "heavily" pro-Apple is laughable.

It's one of the funniest things I've read all week.

I find that when certain keywords like "iToy", "fanbois", "sheeple", "Crapple" and so on are in the post, addressing the point with factual rebuttals tends to be futile.

That train has already sailed.

For the record on this one, the idea that there will be a thriving industry for the repair of niche mechanical timepieces in 100 years but not one for niche electronics is not a point that can be easily answered, but a decade from now? Are you kidding?

How am I moving the goalposts by asking about the keyboard?

A touchscreen is not a keyboard.

A keyboard is a device with physical keys that you press. A touchscreen is a touch-sensitive layer over the top of a physical screen.

How does this make me an idiot? I'm struggling here. Please help me out "n00b".

Also, you forgot to log in again.