Perfect! A well-known, proven, and respected news agency. A properly-written journalistic article. They obviously did some research and contacted related parties for quotes and information. That's not some rumor-flinging blog post, that's journalism.

Of course there isn't any mention of the man being beaten. I wonder if that was just a rumor after all? Now maybe it's all part of a conspiracy or something and the guy really was beaten. However, I can't make a judgement because I don't have any facts one way or the other and I don't make judgements without at least the ghost of a factual basis.

Otherwise I might as well just believe everything I read in print, right? The government is infinitely wise and kind because some blog said so? I should give my money to a preacher because there's a nice web site with kind words? I should attack my neighbor because this leaflet says he's not one of us?

I'm not arguing that. Nothing that I wrote even remotely implies that I am arguing that.

I'm arguing that blogs and rumors are not substitutes for proper reporting practices. Yes, the environment might be hostile towards proper reporting practices but that doesn't change the concept that we can't properly judge issues and stories in the absence of verifiable information.

So perhaps the more dire issue is to fix the system that prevents the investigation and reporting of the facts, THEN go after the issues that the facts highlight. And no, I don't have a good grasp on how to do that other than for the people in the nation to strongly demand it and, if necessary, lay down their lives for it. Just as we did in the USA a couple of hundred years ago and other people in other nations have done throughout history.

Did you bother to click through to the actual "article"?

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/21/reports-of-suicide-in-china-linked-to-missing-iphone/

It's a blog that's very light on any verifiable facts and instead uses unattributed reports:

So you linked to a blog about a blog that uses treats terms like this as facts with nearly no direct reporting or attribution:

• "News media in China"
• "Some publications reported"
• "some reports quoted"
• "Some English-language blogs"

I suppose that I have too high of standards for this day-and-age of blog rumormongering...

Maybe this incident occurred, maybe it didn't. Maybe Foxconn is evil, maybe it isn't. Maybe Apple is responsible, maybe it isn't. We'll get any meaningful answers if all we have are rumors and unsubstantiated aspersions!

Do you really think that the app store is a simple software repository? Apple writes and maintains the software to interface with the apps, runs the billing system and pays the credit card fees, vets apps and handles legal issues, buys bandwidth and server space, performs advertising, etc.

This is all done on a much larger and more involved scale than the usual "set it and forget it" software repository. Obviously Apple does make some profit from the app store but there's no doubt that they have significant expenditures in running the thing. Is 30% too much? Not when you compare it to how much other distribution channels take off the top. I'm sure if there is more competition then you'll see that 30% get shaved but right now 30% is pretty darn nice for what you get.

For all we know they do! The 30% app store cut is just what we see publicly. This doesn't prohibit Apple and software manufacturers from cutting private deals that use a different percentage. It also doesn't prohibit Apple from selling codes in bulk to companies for certain apps.

I'm not saying that this is currently being done, just that there's nothing preventing this sort of thing and it could be happening right now without public knowledge of it.

Oh really?

It looks like Apple contributes quite a few open source projects.

Apple struggles to keep up with demand as it is and they continually expand their production capabilities. Rest assured that there are bean counters in Apple that do the price/demand/production calculation and come up with the best fit.

As far as a high price contributing to a "cool factor" there is no doubt that it contributes to the allure for some people. However, there are also a lot of people who buy on the "cheap trumps quality" factor. In the end it's the balance between price and features that wins out overall. There's no doubt that Apple is doing just fine there, their sales speak to that.

Which is what this article is all about, the demands that your body makes upon you when there is a metabolic/digestive disorder.

Yes, you could eat less or eat better. The problem is that some, perhaps many, people get the wrong kind of signals from their metabolic and digestive systems. These confused signals create cravings very similar to a drug addiction. You WANT to eat less and better but the cravings derail you.

Some people are able to get on top of this and get their metabolic/digestive system back on track, some people are not as lucky. If there were a way to restore some of the balance by changing your gut culture then that would HELP people to break the destructive cycles.

Very few people choose to be overweight and sick. Some people just need a bit more assistance in avoiding/correcting it than others.

Yes, it would! Why won't someone make a device like that? Oh wait, there is one!

Nook for iPad
Kindle for iPad

Surely you know that the production of photovoltaic solar cells produces quite a bit of highly toxic waste? There's also the fact that both wind and solar have extreme problems providing baseline power and really are only good for supplemental power.

Nuclear does produce waste but it's a highly concentrated waste that can actually be refined and reused. There are also several modern reactor designs that mitigate most of the risk and produce much cleaner waste. The myth of "renewable" energy production has been a black hole that we've poured research and subsidy dollars into, dollars that could have gone toward revamping electrical transmission infrastructure, nuclear generation research, and building the latest and safest reactor designs.

I'm all for solar, wind, etc. where it can supplement baseline electrical generation or provide power in out-of-the way locations but we can't rely on it for all of our energy needs.