I, and others here, have given you several opportunities to corroborate your story with substantiating details, including offering specific questions you could answer to strengthen your case. Each time you ignore, redirect, or outright refuse to answer the questions. You have something to hide here, and the most likely thing that you're hiding is that your story is a lie. You have given me and others no reason to think otherwise.

If you refuse to corroborate, then yes, the only reasonable assumption is that you're a liar. I've welcomed you to demonstrate otherwise and you won't even make a superficial effort but once again take the offensive - attacking the questions rather than defending the premise.

What was his badge number, what city were you in and what was the date? Did you ask any questions of him while he was searching you and he refused to answer them? If the very first words he spoke were "you are free to go," how did he communicate to you that he was detaining you for search?

From the new 15 words of information you were so graciously willing to part with, you describe a single event, while earlier you said:

Or did both incidents played out exactly the same?

There are bad cops who overstep their authority and deserve to get called out for it, for example, read Carlos Miller's blog. I'm not convinced you were ever truly wronged by a cop though, your story is too light on details, too heavily peppered with unsubstantiated criticisms and insults, and even what little detail you're willing to part with is internally inconsistent.

So are you refusing to answer the question? You claim to have been stopped for no reason, searched for no reason, and had your civil liberties violated for no reason on multiple occasions. I don't think it's unreasonable for others to be curious about additional details, particularly since from your descriptions of the events, you have good cause for a formal complaint against these officers.

You got a badge number, right? Did you file a complaint? Were there extenuating circumstances (eg, you matched the description of the perpetrator of a recently committed crime)? What you're saying is so incredibly at odds with most people's experience, and you claim it happened multiple times (discounting the fluke aspect), but refuse to corroborate your story even far enough to describe any aspect of it in greater detail.

To be honest, it makes the story sound made up. It sounds like you have some beef with law enforcement in general, and are trying to make up a story to support your cynical view, but you overstepped, and realize that you can't reveal additional details without either taking your story farther into the realm of implausibility or exposing your story as a farce.

If you legitimately had your rights violated, then you should want to see the perpetrators of that crime punished, both for your own sake, as well as the sake of any potential future victims of theirs. Which means you should be providing as accurate, truthful, and thorough a description of the events as possible, including the location, date, time, officer's badge number, and as much additional detail as you can reasonably recall, such as the nature of the verbal interactions. Unless and until you're willing to do that, your story just sounds like you got caught out on a bullshit response, and are taking the offensive to protect your pride.

I'd love to be proven wrong. Note, I'm taking this path of confronting you over the other path available to me of spending all 5 of my mod points marking you as a troll, which I believe you most likely are. However I'll foe you for now so that I'm not baited into believing an uncorroborated story of yours some time in the future.

So do you see the failure of your reasoning? Should we only require Hep B vaccines for the children of bad parents? Or maybe policy needs to consider more than all the happy scenarios and concern itself with the troubling scenarios as well. I'd go one farther and say that it should primarily concern itself with the troubling scenarios.

But it is mentioned several ways in the NIH document I provided earlier.

Wait, what? How is a vaccine detrimental? I think you misunderstand the fundamental premise here.

Do you have some figures to suggest that the net damage is greater pre-vaccination than post-vaccination? Keep in mind you can't compare rates between a country with frequent vaccination against a country with infrequent vaccination because of herd immunity. Do you even have figures about death or disability related to HepB vaccines? You're making a lot of unsupported claims here.

I showed my sources, where are yours?

Oh ok, so a common vector for Hep B according to the NIH should not be a consideration in vaccine policy because you personally aren't affected by it. Cool.

I mentioned that. I also mentioned how vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system, and that immunocompromised patients are given higher doses than other patients - vaccines are inactivated or attenuated. They are enough for your immune system to learn from, but do not represent any significant strain on the immune system. Doses are carefully considered with that in mind.

All of them, I addressed them point by point by citing an authority.

Without question. And particularly for diseases which have strong herd immunity due to significant vaccination rates, the individual risk of receiving a vaccine may in fact outweigh the risk of not receiving the vaccine. However the collective risk is substantially less because you benefit from the vaccinations received by others. In fact, that's what this whole article is about, by weakening members of the herd, we weaken the whole herd.

And should vaccination policy include clauses such as "Unless you're good parents, and promise to remain disease free"?

Have you now? Maybe you should research a little farther, might I suggest the National Institute of Health's article on HepB. Let me quote a couple of entries from there:

* Direct contact with blood in health care settings
Seems like kids might be at roughly the same exposure risk as most adults who don't work in health care. Also I wonder if kids with HepB positive parents are at any risk of exposure to their parents' blood. Probably not, right?

* Sexual contact with an infected person
Sure, infants aren't having sex. Well, unless there's an abusive situation for them, but those kids deserve to get Hepatitis, right?

* Shared personal items (such as toothbrushes, razors, and nail clippers) with an infected person
I wonder if kids ever have their nails clipped. Only if they've given up their dream of having the world record for longest fingernails!

A couple more for good measure:
* The hepatitis B virus can be passed to an infant during childbirth if the mother is infected.
Risk factors for hepatitis B infection include: Being born, or having parents who were born in regions with high infection rates

Right there is a few thousand reasons to try harder to increase the vaccination rate. Also quoting infection rates of a commonly vaccinated against disease is a terrible argument against the need for that vaccination. Tetanus infection rates are pretty low, maybe that vaccination should be deprecated as well?

You realize, of course, that immune systems actually get stronger in response to threats. Vaccines don't leave you weaker, they leave you stronger. It's certainly possible to overwhelm an immune system - particularly a young one - but the tiny amount of virus in a vaccine does not introduce any significant immunostress in even a young or immunocompromised patient. In fact, standard treatment for all but incredibly ill patients (patients who are so ill they need to remain in quarantine) is to give a LARGER dose of a vaccine if their immune system is weak.

Sarcasm notwithstanding, I have not dismissed you as stupid, I've dismissed you as ill-informed. Your stupidity lies not in your lack of knowledge, but rather in how you attempt to spread your ignorance as fact and represent it as being highly informed when the very first response in a Google search for the disease name thoroughly debunks your entire position.

This is not different regardless of cross-licensing deals. The little guy with no patent warchest still faces a gauntlet of patents. Their biggest enemies are not megacorporations, they are various little patent trolls trying to score enough settlements to get a stronger legal team to go after increasingly large opponents. Megacorps don't pursue guys making $1M gross, any potential payout is dwarfed by the legal fees.

Anyway none of the startup ecosystem is dramatically influenced by the patent ecosystem at the high end, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or not of cross-licensing.

I wanted that to be awesome, but the highest rated game is 3.5 stars and is composed exclusively of 30x30 colored squares? And still somehow the framerate is terrible? The next highest at just a pixel above 3 stars looks nicer, but only gets 4-5 fps.

Honestly, HTML5 is the right solution - eventually, but it's not ready to stand up against Flash just yet. These are the kinds of games a Commodore64 would have run, and faster.

Diamonds are a terrible investment for everyone but the original seller.

Battery charge / discharge rate is not constant over the charge level of the battery. The percentage reported by the battery to the OS is just the voltage reading, which is not truly linear to the actual charge level. It even depends on the load being placed on the battery. See this image (from here).

So sure, you can do a bad job of reporting remaining battery time that way. Or you can do a good job by involving some more advanced mathematics. This is a good example of why math is useful, even if most jobs don't fundamentally require it. Most programmers I know would look at the above chart and declare they have no idea how to deal with that, but it is pretty close to linear, and they know how to write that math, so that's what they'd write, then call it good enough.

You can be a programmer without higher math. But you can be a better programmer with it.

PayPal and its ilk have existed for a few years now.

Wait, there's an app store that markets more than the top 0.01% of apps?

I thought we were talking about payment processing, and whether 30% fees are reasonable.

You're talking platform in a thread about the justness of Apple excluding all other payment processing options.

I get it, red herrings and straw men.

Sweet, back on topic. You are happy to pay a premium for convenience. Not everyone feels that way, but that option is taken away from them under Apple's rule.

Wait, you mean distributors charge more more to package, stock, and ship a physical good than an electronic download?

Maybe there should be a 3 strikes rule for infringement. The third time you infringe someone's rights by posting a bogus takedown request, you lose your right to request any additional takedowns.

Some apps have that and handle that just fine. Other apps do not. It's not in the developer's best interests to let you replay IAP's, they get absolutely nothing from a replayed IAP. Some IAP's are for transients ("100 bonus turns today" or "one month with ads disabled" kind of thing), so it doesn't make sense that all IAP's are necessarily replayable. It's totally up to the developer, and most do not choose to spend much if any effort on that.

Where do you get this figure? It sounds absurd on the face of it (and the number is cited in a way to sound bigger, "2,300%" is 23 times - which I still don't accept without a credible source). Jailbreaking is far more common among those I know with iPhones than rooting is among those I know with Android phones. I don't know anyone who is willing to admit to pirating Android apps, and I know several different personal circles who traffic in pirated iOS apps.

I wonder if Android is either easier to figure out who pirated vs who didn't, or if something about the Android platform falsely inflates these "pirated" numbers. Most articles I've read that talk about Android pirating do nothing to describe how they meter this, so any reporting on it at all is specious as far as I'm concerned.

I won't do in-app purchases even for free apps, and even for apps I would have gladly paid several dollars for retail. The reason is simple: If I restore my phone, get a new phone, or even just uninstall and reinstall, I lose credit for that IAP.

IAP's need to be replayable for me to be willing to invest in them. I don't want to have to re-pay for your app each time I upgrade something or make room on my device. Some apps handle IAP replaying cleanly. Most do not. I'm not a gambling man, so if your model is IAP for a non-transient purchase, count me out.

Of course I'm the very small minority, so...

Yeah, I don't intend to suggest that Jouranatic's treatment of "hyperlocal" stories is the best treatment. Just suggesting to GP that "hyperlocal" doesn't mean, "Did you see the Jones family put up new siding?" Rather I mean that there are events happening which are relevant to a subset of individuals, which would not be relevant to the population typically covered by a newspaper.

Journatic's approach is flawed, but is probably the result of trying to provide this kind of reporting without costing as much as sending a reporter to be physically present at every town hall and township meeting. The core idea has merit, but the very reason this work hasn't been done historically is because properly covering that content is not cost effective. I'm not sure it would ever be possible to provide both good reporting and remain financially solvent at that level. That doesn't mean that kind of reporting has no value, just that you can't sell it for what it costs to produce.