I think "african hospitals are not quite the hermetically sealed, pressurized clean-rooms like the CDC facilities" is a pretty glaring factor you're leaving out. And that factor is precisely why its safe to wrap these guys in plastic by people in plastic suits to take back to the plastic catacombs in Atlanta.
The reasoning you're unpacking is in your head -- the fallacy you point out exists entirely in your restatement of the argument, not the argument itself. Amazon has many documented examples of selling for a loss, a willingness to ignore short to medium term losses if it means control of a market.
Amazon is not being merely efficient; Amazon is engaging in predatory pricing and other market-manipulations to try to control a market. That may mean their prices are lower right now, but if their other markets can cover that loss and can maintain that for long enough that they can run the loss until those businesses are destroyed, is the market well served? Is it efficiency? What contains that price after the competition is destroyed and drives efficiency then?
The fiction that our second amendment rights are "under assault" is a kind of strange delusion bordering on mass hysteria that has no relationship to reality. Across the country gun rights are soundly trumping any attempt at sensible gun safety regulation.
Read it. Its just a booster. It makes intellectual property violations considered 'willful' if involving a fraudulent domain name, and takes on extra penalties if you commit a crime involving a fraudulent domain name.
It doesn't make anything illegal, nor does it give ICANN force of law.
Sorry, no; its used by a lot of people all the time.
By, "almost no one uses it" you mean "I don't personally and assume my anecdote speaks for the many".
If you're an iPad developer, you're a sad one. The iPad has supported bluetooth for years now and shows signs of INCREASING and not decreasing support. Not only for simple things like keyboards and headphones -- things used often by iPad users for years now -- but AirDrop, a new and major feature in IOS is based on Bluetooth. Then there's the fact that Apple is totally behind supporting bluetooth, and *expanding* their support in things like Bluetooth LE which Apple's SDK's calls "iBeacons", which is a major new feature in the OS too.
I don't know what world you're in, but it isn't the real one.
I have had no issues ever using random bluetooth keyboards bought from radio shack with my iPad. It works totally fine. I don't usually use a keyboard because I don't need one -- but in an emergency situation where I need to code/fix something on the run, I've stopped by random places and bought a random keyboard -- and it works perfectly.
I don't have a first generation iPad -- and never used a keyboard with one, but from at least second generation on -- no issue whatsoever.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or shaming.
The key word in your description is "remain" -- Prop 8 wasn't about keeping the status quo, as was the case in a lot of states who passed laws amending their constitution to define marriage as 1m1w
Prop 8 was different to a lot of people because of this distinction. The traditional legal definition of marriage was already ruled unconstitutional in California (per the state's Constitution, not the US one) -- thus, gay people in the state of California for about six months there were allowed to get married.
And Prop 8 was an attempt to *remove* that right. It's a lot harder to remove a right (and a lot more offensive) once its been recognized as being held then it is to preemptively try to keep anyone from getting it. As far as I know, California is the only state which tried to tighten up the marriage definition after a state court ruled the existing definition violated their constitution.
It might seem overly technical and nitpicky, but personally the difference between the two situations really resonates with me. As a customer/regular person, I've held people who supported Prop 8 in contempt, however mildly so, and so understand the people who were upset at Eich's elevation to such an open and progressive organization. That said, I don't actually share their feelings. The world has changed far too much, far faster then I could have imagined, for me to continue holding Prop 8 against anyone in any serious way.
Mini-rant/clarification: I do take issue with statements like, "majority of Californians" -- but I hate it when any side of an argument speaks up about a majority. To be clear, a majority of Californian's didn't side with him. Barely over 7 million out of 13.7 million voters in a state of about 36 million people did. (Heck, a big pet peeve of mine is when practically anyone speaks for The American People. Its almost always a partisan who is speaking to a segment that at least an equal segment probably aggressively opposes what's being said)
An adult can choose to be stupid if they want, and that's their right.
The Creation Museum and similar Creationist institutions are trying to substitute their stupid for scientific knowledge in the schools our children go to.
You can take your kids to church and teach them your religion if you want, but when you start trying to undermine basic scientific education for everyone that's a very different thing.
I'm taking the "racists mush?" question to have been answered with "yes" when you go name a people "muzzies".
The point was, you're claiming Muslim rioting as a counterpoint, but even if its accepted that those riots are a part of this this trend of rioting spoken of-- they don't fit even your pattern, they *aren't* a counterpoint simply because you state it. Naming them to counter the argument is just racist handwaving at best: oh, well the Muslims (er, muzzies) are rioting, so clearly there's no pattern because, they like are muzzies, and muzzies, do that. You know. Cuz. They do. Muzzies. Riot.
There's no link between Muslims and the Ukraine and their riots unless you twist reality severely to try to force a point. The riots in the Ukraine are about (at least-- it very well may be a much more involved story) a segment of the population who has a history of successful revolution when in relation to serious belief of election fraud and corruption; and acts by the current government that are viewed as corrupt and against their interests (namely, aligning Ukraine more closely to Russia instead of the EU). Is that true? Dunno. But there's nothing Muslim about it.
To look at former Soviet satellite states and see their dislike for union with Russia as a sign of Muslim rioting just cuz, needs some serious .
Thailand is a complex situation: they have a mix of pro-government people from varied situations, and anti-democracy forces who think there's something just wrong with their government and simple election counting when the counters have such tremendous control. Its sort of bemusing to hear some of riots which are specifically yelling: democracy bad! But, that is because of a nuanced and complicated situation they're going through, with an extremely wealthy subset seem to have democratic support of the rural masses at the cost of great disapproval in the middle classes of the city. This, of course, is a very broad stroke description of the situation. I'm not sure where to fall on the subject, and I lack seriously enough information to really have a solid idea. But.
The point is, it isn't because muslims happened. Culture happened. People happened. This is nuanced.
No comparison to the "muzzies" sheds any insight on this situation.
The because the real world is complicated, nuanced, and based on history and the context of real people living real lives.
Yes, some "muzzies" had riots, for reasons. That doesn't make every riot and every government going through growing pains because, you know, the muzzies.
Seriously, dude, you said "muzzies".
I should have just stopped there.
Racist much? Maybe not. Islamaphobic much, though?
No, the United States did not say that.
I recall some wingnut in Congress suggested various extreme remedies, but that's not "The United States" saying anything. All it takes to end up in Congress is to convince a narrow majority of a minority of racially and economically similar people who will actually show up to vote, to send you there. These days, by using all kinds of lies, but that's not completely new. Gerrymandering has just made it fairly absurd the kinds of lies you could tell and still end up in Congress. But no one in Congress speaks for the United States. Random anonymous military or intelligence people don't speak for the United States, either.
You need to be a pretty high level Administration official to speak for the nation about that (I'd take Secretary of State, Defense or Homeland Security; or the DNI when the CIA was operating the drone program,.. or the President, of course). Granted, the Administration has put US citizens on the kill list and is debating doing it again, but not to Snowden. If you can't win your case about the guy without spreading lies or (excessively) paranoid rantings, there's something wrong with your case.
The United States has threatened to prosecute him, not kill him extra-judicially.
I don't think mixing "literally" and "legitimately" in the same sentence make sense, since the latter is entirely a determination of opinion.
You may not agree with Apple's position that every single milimeter and ounce matters, but that position is legitimate. There are consequences to that position, such as not being able to replace the battery yourself -- but its not like Apple is hiding that its laptops don't have user replaceable batteries.
Its a perfectly legitimate design decision and trade off. Maybe for you that means the products aren't for you -- that doesn't make it not *legitimate*, let alone not *literally* so.
You, sir, are daring to bring facts to a gunfight.