From the article you linked to, comparative advantage is related to marginal cost, which is a comparison of two goods. The law of comparative advantage says if the costs of production for the two goods are different, it will be advantageous for the two parties to specialize and trade, even if one party produces both goods at a lower absolute cost (money, labor, time, natural resources, any way you want to measure it).

Suppose the north produces very cheap water and electricity. Further suppose the southwest produces slightly more costly, but still fairly cheap electricity, and very costly water. Even though the southwest is disadvantaged in both markets, it still benefits both parties if the southwest produces only electricity and the north produces only water.

I don't have a problem with segregated schools, or gender or ethnic associations, per se.

I have a problem with doing it on the taxpayer dime. (Though I can't speak for Slashdot as a whole, but that seems to be the leaning.)

That's the problem. That's sexism.

You're providing services to individuals based on the traits stereotypically associated with their gender, whether or not the individual actually has any of those stereotypical qualities... that's sexism.

No one's gonna use this for donating to panhandlers (just to bump into them at the store buying more alcohol...)

The real use for this will be tip jars, purchasing products, mobile micropayments.

You think business is gonna see this technology and just sit on their hands?

Charge too high and that's "gouging"
Charge too low and that's "dumping"
Charge the same as everyone else and that's "collusion"

Is there anything that's not antitrust?

Charging per GB is OK.
Charging per month, unlimited is OK.
Charging per GB except certain kinds of services... not OK?

Antitrust is completely irrelevant here.

I like this idea. I'm thinking, though, once you've already programmed a rocket to be able to land in a particular place, getting it to land without tipping over isn't that much extra work, compared to the cost of building out an entire silo with spinning platform.

And I guess they wanted to stick with an ocean landing for some reason.

But mobile phone developer isn't "forced" to use Apple products?

I run an Internet radio stream myself. I'm fully aware of T-Mobile's terms of the service, and they're not bad. But even if it was...

The thing about their plan is it's a voluntary part of their billing. They're not throttling anyone, they're not prioritizing traffic or dropping packets based on the source or destination.

There's no barrier to entry, it doesn't make it harder to get an Internet connection or start a new service.
(Centralized distributers like YouTube, Google Play, Twitch.tv -- they do. They control their platform, they own the audience that you're trying to get exposed to, and if you want to access that audience, you're subject to their rules through and through.)

The only thing T-Mobile doing is footing the bill for shuttling data. What's not to like?

You're talking to someone who runs a 24/7 Internet radio stream. Network, routing, copyright, artists, library, website, the whole shebang. It's really not that hard to sign on with their program. But even if it was...

The thing about their plan is it's a voluntary part of their billing. They're not throttling anyone, they're not prioritizing traffic or dropping packets based on the source or destination.

The only thing they're doing is footing the bill for shuttling data. Paying for someone else's bills is always welcome in my book.

Not just that, but there's little evidence to suggest proper Internet access would even get more expensive. (At least for me, access to just one website is not "Internet access")

In fact, since this is a change in demand (not a change in quantity demanded), economics suggests the price should go down.

The only way it would go up is if it lures more people into buying Internet data plans... wouldn't that also be good?

I have 1GB of 4G-speed data with T-Mobile. I'm also a prolific streamer of Internet radio. For some parts of my work, it's required.

Now I get to run however much I like, wherever I am, and T-Mobile eats the costs, leaving bandwidth available for other, more important things.

What's there to protest?

No, you can install the official Windows development tools - including Windows itself - on almost any desktop there is.

Not so with iOS.

You wouldn't say Apple has as strong or a stronger hold on the music and mobile phone markets? There's plenty of adequate competition for search engines.

If nobody else even knows about alternative search engines, you can't really hold Google liable for that, can you?

For all of the problems they listed, isn't Apple far bigger and far worse with said problems? Why do I need Apple hardware to merely develop iOS?

Isn't Android something of a problem? At least I can change search engines no-cost, who cares if they show a map with their search results (that's kind of what I'd want if I'm searching for a location or business, isn't it?). But Android has become progressively more closed-source, Google-specific, and if I want to adopt a different app store, that's going to cost $200 at least.

You're posting a lot of accusations in this thread today. Don't you have a job? Or is someone paying you to say such inflammatory things without positively contributing to the discussion?