I don't even care if they hurt Apple. I just want things to be good for consumers again. Force the publishers to have to negotiate again on an individual basis. Thats all I, the customer, care about. Apple can do whatever the hell it wants, as long as it is legal.
If the ends and the means involve more freedom and consumer choice, then yes.
The freedom to pay more? More choices at the exact same inflated price?
I'm 100% positive that that's absolutely not what happened. Funny sense of re-writing reality you have there. I've heard a term for that before, I'm sure you bandied it about before...
RTFA. That is exactly what happened, well at least the spirit of things. They told the publishers that they could set their own prices, but no one is allowed to sell for lower. This helped Apple, since they didn't have to fight over price (with their ridiculous mark-up) with Amazon (with their huge market share, and existing infrastructure, and contracts). It didn't do much to Amazon. But it screwed consumers.
90% to 60%, and no longer able to bully the publishers around to the same extent as before. I don't know how you can think that doesn't count as being "hurt". Perhaps if that three-letter term I referenced above would come to me, what is it?...
So basic economics is only useful as long as it doesn't hurt your favorite company? Amazon had a larger customer base, more infrastructure, more experience, more contacts, and thus more buying power. Normally this would mean they could leverage lower prices. But... being that this wasn't good for Apple, this is wrong now?
None of this really matters though, all that matters is if Apple actually engaged in price fixing. Which is illegal. And has been for a long time. Nintendo got busted for it in the 80's. The RIAA got busted in the 90's. So if Apple did the same thing, they should get busted now. Being a bully is legal. Price fixing isn't. Look up the definition of "price fixing", look up the actual facts of the case... This is all that matters, not what you feel about Amazon, or Apple.
You mean how I now have more plentiful options for eBooks? Wow, I'm soooooo hurt!
Before this there were multiple sources of ebooks. But... and this is all that matters to me, they were at different prices. Amazon might be cheaper, or Kobo, or Barnes and Noble, or... even Apple. Now we might have more sources, but who cares, they all cost the same (too much). Not that it matters to me anymore, I refuse to buy ebooks until they actually cost as much as I see their worth (less than actual books, since they aren't material, I don't own them, they aren't permanent, and I can't share them, and if Apple or whoever don't like me they can make them go away). Back before Apple screwed us, I loved them. Now... I'm waiting for the law, or publishers, to realize that the writing is on the wall.
They've offered products which I've willingly paid for.
At an artificially inflated price. And you have no choice than to pay that price, unlike almost any other product in the world. The real book, I can get cheaper, I can get discounted, I can get as a loss-leader, I can get clearance, I can get second hand, or at near wholesale... The ebook, I can't.
Kaku doesn't really strike me as credible. I'm sure he's a good scientist, but he does too many "time travel wormhole star trek is cool!" pop-sci things to really let me trust him. Tyson reminds me of Sagan, smart and doesn't feel the need to dress things up to sell to the lay audience. Kaku is like Bill Nye, science for people who hate science. Tyson is Mr. Wizard, science for people who just didn't go to school for it but find it cool just because science is cool in-itself.
I suppose thats main difference in how people teach science; one group thinks to be interesting science must DO something. The other school think that the intrinsic "aha" of science is enough to make it interesting. I find the former group to be annoying, and more destructive than useful.
Tyson is willing to let the science talk for itself, without dressing it up. Which makes him Sagan-y enough to reboot something as venerable as Cosmos. He's more likely to let the sheer beauty of the universe talk for itself, without forcing wormholes and time-travel down our throats.
What stops the government from becoming the "top" instead?
Enforcing strict accountability, transparency and keeping money away from politicians to as great an extent as possible? By forcing them to judge things on "for the good of all of us" as opposed to "for the good of a small percentage of us".
The "science" is obvious and settled to you, so you want to treat anyone that has doubts as babies. Golf clap for you, drooling-dog. Have you met Kenji?
I can do the same thing on Win 7 with pinning buttons to the task bar or shortcuts on the desktop, or a widget that starts stuff.
Which obviously works, but I still prefer how Win8 does it. I've got about 40 programs pinned, along with some notifications, in 4 groups. This would be a pain without the start screen, especially since I'm one of those people who hate cluttered desktops (right now I have 3 folders and a link, thats it, and it feels cluttered).
Get your eyes checked, if you are having trouble finding stuff you probably need vision corrected or to get checked for glaucoma.
Looking at my girlfriends start menu... she has around 35 folders, and 10 programs sitting on the first level of her start menu... dig inside them, and you'll find 10-15 files, mostly readmes or uninstallers, along with links to webpages. Every time something installs the bloat grows. Every times something get uninstalled, it leaves zombie items and folders behind. And if you want to keep it all organized you have to muck around with it after EVERY single install, and need to manage to two separate locations that feed into the start menu (all users, and user). I tried to keep a nice hierarchy (start>design>sound/graphics/text/utilities), but I generally put it off, since it was one more pointless task that made me feel like I was fighting against my OS, and more-so, developers who feel the need to put as much cruft and clutter on my computer.
There is a reason that every other major OS or windowing scheme has moved beyond pure menus for program management. The start menu should die, and I will not mourn it.
And so far as I can tell, a whole lot of that disparity in outcomes is less a question of differences in brains than of the environments people are in over a long period of time.
Actual scientific answers to things like this would go a long way. My girlfriend used to work with people with sever autism (nonfunctioning), and we have a couple friends with highly functional aspergers (not counting the self-diagnosis, which I always mistrust), and the difference is mind-blowing. I don't think environmental causes alone can account for such a discrepancy, really they might as well be different disorders (not that I'd consider highly functioning aspergers to be a "disorder", per-se, more a cognitive difference). I wouldn't be surprised if Autism was fractured into several separate disorders, and the lowest end of the spectrum was shaved off someday when we realized that not everyone works the same, or responds to stimulus the same way.
"More science" is my answer to everything though...
Seriously, I am curious to learn which areas you found to be an improvement over previous versions of Windows on desktop machines.
People have different tastes, no big surprise. I
I like Windows 8. I like the start screen. I actually like it more than the menu of old, it is more useful to me, personally. If they got rid of it, I'd try to find software to replace it. I don't mind the lack of start button, less shit on my desktop is good (another personal preference), I never really cared about the button sitting there, saying "Start", or whatnot, since I haven't even seen it since Win95 thanks to muscle memory and the win key.
This isn't to say everything in Win8 is good. I don't like that "All programs" screen, it is an un-organized/unorganizable mess, especially next to my very organized and aesthetic metro screen. The charms bar is dumb, I appreciate the thought but it seems a bit rushed and tacked on. The difference between the top-left corner, and alt-tab annoys me. Search is a bit of a mess as well. Apps are dumb, both in layout and being forced to use the Windows Store, and not being able to be windowed. And having ads.... And being generally piss-poor compared to real software. And not having intuitive controls on a desktop, not a tablet. And... I could go on. As a result I've only bought one app (Game Dev Tycoon), and only actually use another (Pulse), the rest only act as heads ups, and notifications.
Internally Windows 8 is pretty nice too, it is actually reliable when it comes to transfers over my network, and with SD cards, and manages to be about as BSOD prone as 7, i.e. not at all. I'm not as excited about Windows 8 as I was about Win7 (its like XP, but compatible, stable, and modern!), but I can overlook its flaws for its good bits.
I'm actually pretty excited for when/if the Leap Motion actually comes out, since it seems like it would work perfectly with Metro apps, if not for anything on the desktop. MS dropped the ball a bit by not releasing Kinect PC with Windows 8.
I must be the only person who actually prefers the metro menu thing. I don't think I could go back to the small and horribly ordered (unless you spend the tedium of organizing it constantly) menu again. I like having all my main programs organized and displayed prominently. The metro screen is the best thing they did in Win 8, really (outside of making SD and Network transfers less idiotic).
Metro apps are still mostly crap, and they still need to make the whole OS feel less "tacked on", and work on UI and app consistency, though.
If this update is $15-20 I'll grab it. If not... I don't mind Win 8.
Which is neither here nor there... Autism is just as scientific as a non-measured dopamine imbalance, when it comes down to it. Less so, even, since no one can really point to a brain or test and say "yep, there's your autism problem right there".
This obviously doesn't mean autism doesn't exist, or rather the cloud of behaviors that we currently label "autism" doesn't exist. Autism is very much a diagnostic "shrug" right now, nothing more than a loose collection of behaviors and severities. At one end you have people who aren't mentally "ill" (it doesn't impair their ability to function at a high level), and at the other you have non-verbals who bang their heads into walls who can't even communicate. You have a vast array of symptoms, which aren't even shared between all individuals. And you have very little to no science backing it up.
Again, I'm not saying that people don't have it, or what people feel isn't real... But there is no difference between autism and a non-measured dopamine disorder... outside of the fact that we CAN measure dopamine, and it can be low... but at the moment we can't measure autism.