Lawyers are not free. Being sued is a royal pain in the ass. Having to deal with it may not be worth the trouble to him, even if it would turn out he'd surely win.

I'm sure Apple would love nothing more then to go SIMless: the idea of completely eliminating a component would thrill them. Think of what they could put in its place!

But, the carriers rejected that idea hard, years ago. So Apple is doing the next best thing: trying to make the damn things as small as possible so they can recover the space for other things.

The manufacturers only have so much power-- even Apple, whose influence over carriers is unparalleled and unprecedented, has limits to what it can twist their arm into doing. Unfortunately.

I doubt its a cost issue; people keep saying on here "Oh, the regular one is small enough to not impact the phone size" and "Oh, the micro-SIM is small enough...." But, that's just missing the point. Its not the phone size Apple wants to change: its that they very much want the iPhone to turn into the Doctor's Blue Box and cram more into it without the size changing.

If you look at the teardown of modern iPhones, you should notice just how densely packed they are-- and /any/ space savings means either more battery (likely), or some place to fit another chip in to provide some sensor or feature. Every little bit counts these days. Look at the teardown: the micro-SIM is to your fingers but it and its supporting space is significant on the scale of the device and its packed electronics.

If they want to add more (more chips, more battery, more anything) they can only a) increase the device's size, b) take something out, or c) shrink something already in. They're trying to do c) and everything is on the table for shrinkage.

Romney, kinda. Except he's electable by the core only on a "I'm not Obama. Honest. No, really, I'm not" platform which will get the core to vote for him only begrudgingly. He might appeal to some moderates and he has at least a chance at the general, I think. If only as a "not Obama" candidate.

The rest are gonna freak the hell out of any moderates they get near and guarantee an Obama re-election. I think the real candidates are sitting this election out and waiting for 2016.

This is all true to an extent (though an incumbent President can loose, but they do have a solid advantage).

But we are also a nation which has a fundamentalist minority that drives the election process of one of our two major parties.

They aren't the Christian Taliban because the Taliban was actually in power, so could do what it wanted. The difference is these people can't. That doesn't mean they don't want to.

These people would be happy to criminalize sex that didn't conform to their view of Correct (all the while preaching of "personal liberty" and "freedom"). They would not stone the woman for being raped, but they'd call her a whore who asked for it because she didn't dress appropriately. They would teach only what is religiously acceptable in schools, including mandating prayer (except for the Jews, who are the only ones who would not have to go). They would go back to segregation at best (if not outright slavery, which was also in the bible).

Fortunately, most Americans are not this vile. Even most Republicans. Unfortunately, this minority has enthusiasm and a will-to-power like no one else, so is always out there on election day, always donating, always working -- so the Republicans have to kowtow to them. There is a certain subset of their beliefs-- fiscal conservatism-- which resonates with a lot of the sane Republicans, and a lot of moderates (and even some Democrats), and so lately they've been trumpeting that and getting a lot of support in the "Tea Party" movement.

But their fundamentalism, the ultimately theocratic Republic they actually want, the "social conservatism" that almost everyone outside of their minority rejects, is never very far away. They just don't say it too loud, and say only the least bigoted things they can get away with. Currently, homophobia is the most socially acceptable form of bigotry, so they're all about that.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't put the blacks in their place if they could. They are just sane enough to keep that talk mostly quiet (but its quite telling when someone brings a mic to rallies...).

Alas. Our parties are engines for elections more then ideological political groupings, and this minority has rooted itself very deeply into the engine of one of the them. That's scary as all hell, but they are a long way to becoming the Christian Taliban. That doesn't mean they don't *wish* they had that power.

Most Christians by far are still fair-minded, decent people who may even disagree with things like homosexuality and even vote against gay marriage -- but they don't long for the day before Lawrence vs Texas was ruled when gay sex was an actual crime. There's a huge difference between Fundamentalist Christianity and mainstream Christianity. Just like there's a huge difference between Fundamentalist Islam and mainstream Islam.

The fundamentalists in the Christian world are just not in actual power. (Thank God. History tells us what happens when they do get in power).

Your mental exercise is flawed; but let's go with it. If someone took Obama's actual words and actual vulgar, racist profanity and turned it around into an over-the-top satiric(sp?) response that was more disgusting (but not by an order of a magnitude) then what Obama actually said, and turned it into some huge online campaign which got to the top of the search results -- I'd see no problem with it, either. Its not bullying.

Politicians are not just people. They choose the public space, they put themselves on the pulpit. Their speech is magnified already without the internet: moreover, their power is magnified beyond what any individual has. They can effect change that directly endangers people's liberty and safety.

That someone manages to take the internet and use it to counter the hate-machine that supports this politician (the Tea Party and "conservative" movement which are all for smaller government doing less-- except when it comes to government involvement in sex, where it needs to be bigger and do more) is not an act of "bullying".

A bully uses superior power to beat down someone weaker. A United States Senator does not qualify as someone needing protection from the mean, awful, big bad brutes on the playground. Who are being just *mean*.

I can't fathom how you would find it weird.

For one, Steve was deeply private about his personal life. I know a lot of people who didn't even know he had children. He kept his image and his job separate from his family and his home.

He cared about Apple deeply; it was more then just a job. Apple was the face and engine of what he envisioned. I would be shocked and offended if Apple did not seek to protect his image and interests even after his death-- granted, with the consent of his wife (and though the article does not state this is explicitly with her consent, assuming its not is a bigger leap then assuming it is)-- but I have seen no evidence at all that his family has ever wanted to get involved in the limelight.

Steve built Apple: were it to do anything but defend him to the utmost of its ability would be nothing short of a betrayal by the company he built of the family he loved.

Sure, there are people who may want to buy a figure like this one. But it is undignified and not at all something I think Steve would want: I would be shocked if his family disagreed, and I would /expect/ Apple to do something about it.

On a technical level, the duty of the company is solely to the shareholders. But come on. Defending Steve's image and his families dignity is something they can do which is not at all devoid-of-a-soul /and/ good for their business all at the same time.

Android may have the highest market-share, but what the Article -- and several others done that have rather consistently said the same thing -- is that despite being #1 in number of phones, it has trailed significantly behind iOS in actual web browsing.

For whatever reason, though less people buy an iPhone, a significantly higher margin actually use their iOS device on the web. It is the #1 mobile platform for web browsing. Perhaps because iOS is more then iPhone by a large margin, but Android people tend to hate it when the iPod Touch or iPad are brought up and conflated with the iPhone (even though Apple people tend to view iPhone + iPad + iPod Touch as a single platform). Perhaps its just that iPhone users do use the web more. I have no idea.

But this is not at all an isolated report in that regard. Even Google has stated that about two thirds of their mobile ad revenue comes from the iPhone.

The J2ME thing is weird though and its the first time I've heard of it showing up at all in the top lists, so I dunno what's different about this report then others.

I'm not saying the case doesn't exist, but that "no clause is valid that restricts your right to sue" doesn't seem to be accurate.

Perhaps there was something specific about the IBM case which in those specific circumstances the contract not to sue was invalid. Employment is a complex thing with a lot of laws, both federal and state, protecting and defining the relationship. Or, perhaps its the inverse, and in health care you have less rights then other places. But that seems wrong. Or, perhaps arbitration is special-cased as an alternate to suing that's just as good (though that is a joke) so it doesn't count as "restricting".

Either way though: /no clause/ is a very broad statement and seems quite demonstrably false.

Umm. I can't reconcile your claims with the fact that I know Kaiser has a binding arbitration clause that has been upheld and enforced for like two decades in California.

You can't sue Kaiser here. People have tried to get around it but the courts have rejected it.

Now, perhaps there is a difference between "you may not sue me at all" and "you may only use this alternate limited resolution system which can't be appealed and which is rather stacked heavily in Kaiser's favor" to whatever this California law is that you're citing but "no clause is valid that restricts your rights to sue" seems simply factually invalid.