I find it petty to try and and construe my post as an ad hominem attack when I was simply pointing out that he was not infallible and Apple wouldn't be as successful today if everyone had treated his words as gospel.
The Cube was different: They tried something new and failed.

You can also integrate more functions on a plastic component (such as case, cushioning and clips), whereas the equivalent in metal and glass will probably require seperate parts which in turn have to be assembled together.

From an engineering perspective plastic is such an incredibly useful and durable material. The iPhone is a perfect example of designers forcing metal and glass into something for aesthetic reasons. If you want functionality you go with plastic.

*If* the NSA is monitoring you. If a government agency were to have access to a hypothetical extensive fingerprint database it may very well *start* monitoring you, based on some fingerprints they found somewhere.

Well, technically they only said it wouldn't be uploaded to any *Apple* servers.

That's what they claim. But even assuming this makes it secure, given the industry track record as well as recent revelations we have every reason to disbelieve this. The only way to verify the claim would be to review all hardware documentation and source code.

If I were to follow you all day I could find out your address, job, what car you drive, likely income, your friends and correspondents, what pills you take as well as your mistress or any other embarrassing secret. Ditto for all your family members.

The difference with the fingerprint scanning phone is that it uses practically no resources (you're the one paying for the scanner) and can be extended to everyone who ever picks up an iPhone.

Jobs also opposed arrow keys, the iPod mini, making iPods compatible with Windows as well as third-party apps.

Apple are the vendors. They sold it to him and debited his account. They are his primary contact and ultimately responsible for fulfillment of the contract. The fact that the error happened upstream does not excuse this.

If it makes them read it slower that's probably a good thing. Shakespeare can be skimmed over really quickly, but almost every line requires some pondering if you really want to appreciate it.
Your suggestion on the other hand encourages the opposite: Get through the reading requirement as quickly as possible to reap the reward. The parent has managed to transfer his disengagement from the topic to their child. Hardly very useful.

The more successful parent will try to increase the engagement with the medium, and show an interest in the text themselves. You might get through less volume, but chances are the kid is more likely to look at a few Shakespeare clips when they log on to youtube.

I suspect by anachronistic he wasn't referring to specific details that have to be identified but rather the character's actions and behavior for the modern reader, as well as the storytelling itself. To deny that the social and literary developments in the last 400 years have had no effect on the perception of Shakespeare is a bit disingenuous.

As for reading skills you could engage in an endless debate about parents vs. teachers, but at the end of the day you have to question the sense in forcing someone to read something they clearly aren't able to appreciate or gain any value from.

The formulas that I found easiest to remember were the ones which were placed next to a diagram or picture. It's not the information that's in the image, but the the extra association which makes recollection easier. It's how our brains work.
I remember seeing an interview with a competitive memory guy and one of his techniques for remembering the order of a pack of cards was to associate each card with an object and make up a story from the sequence. What at first seems completely arbitrary and useless is actually a highly effective memory technique.

The wording was confusing, sorry. I meant the costs for the servers, which usually belonged to a University. In their spare time geeks would write about geeky stuff like TV shows or Bonsai gardening, but as a reliable resource content was pretty scarce. As soon as privately hosted content became common you started to see ads.

To be fair though back in them days people who made websites usually got it paid for by their University or company. They wrote about topics they pursued as a hobby and consequently lacked professionalism.

Considering that most African countries have either English French or Arabic as an official language Internet access would probably not only give them access to lots of information but also facilitate communication with their own officials better.

The best results come from people applying their expertise to a problem, not from fallacious prioritizing. Google obviously believes this is a problem they'll be good at. Despite the bleak pictures the media likes to paint there is still plenty of benefit that developing countries can draw from internet access.