AppleCare, and more specifically AppleCare Plus are pretty much a joke. Apple Care Plus If you read the terms of AppleCare plus...

Which means that after you pay Extra for the AppleCare Plus on your iPhone, you still have to pay $49 if you break it... AND you only get that super discounted price of $49 twice. What kind of extended warranty is that?

Unfortunately, these same Grazing animals don't graze any more, and we have to bring the food to them. Oh, sure, there are "Free Range" animals, but the meat produced from them is more expensive. The majority of the meat produced from these Grazing Animals does require labor and oil and pesticide... because we must grow the food for these animals, harvest the food for these animals, and transport the food for these animals. That requires pesticide, labor, and oil.

Thus meat production *IS* more inefficient than growing vegetables, because it involves the process *OF* growing vegetables, plus a whole lot more.

Ok, ok... so Hay isn't any kind of vegetable you or I would eat. But it is still sown, grown, harvested and transported.

How is this comment tagged as Insightful? There must be a metric ton of non-Americans who are ignorant of what life is like over here.

For example. They are ignorant of the large number of people driving without licenses, in unregistered, uninsured, and un-inspected vehicles. I am not claiming that this phenomenon is limited to the USA, I am instead pointing out that the tolerance for risk has NOT decreased at the rate it is apparently assumed. That's in just one small way as well. Then there are the many permutations based on that scenario.... unlicensed driver in a friend's car, licensed driver in an uninsured car, etc. Then there are the drunk drivers... sometimes, there are drunk Cops on the road. There are those that are high that shouldn't be driving. So with the vast number of cars that should not be on the road for one reason or another in the USA, you take your life into your hands every time you get on the road. Again... not saying that we are unique in this aspect... just pointing out we are no different.

How long has the Chevy Volt been out on the market? Oh wait... it's less than a year old. It's still only being sold in limited markets. It's not even overseas in most markets. They just had a TEST VEHICLE catch fire WEEKS after it was in an accident. I'm sorry.... this kind of thing is COMMON outside of the USA? Sure, investigators say they cannot repeat the incident. Sure, it's not the American people who are all upset by this but instead it is GM (the manufacturer) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Let's recap then. The Manufacturer is slightly concerned, but points out it's no more dangerous than any other car. The Administration set up by the United States Government (and anyone who thinks that the United States Government does what the people of the USA want is ignorant) to monitor Highway traffic and safety wants to avoid putting cars on the road that might spontaneously burst into flames a few weeks after they were in an accident and repaired... because THEY know that Americans will easily accept the risk of reusing a potentially damaged battery, rather than play it safe and replace it. Wait... did you catch that? There is an important example of how Americans assume risk every day. Something gets damaged, and where others would replace it to be safe, Americans are generally willing and ready to continue to use the damaged product. Doesn't matter if it is a hammer, table saw, damaged gas tank in a car... whatever.

You say change the batteries after a collision. You are a hypocrite. You make a statement like that, and try to pass it off as common sense so people won't see it for what it is... playing it safe. The whole reason why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned is BECAUSE a majority of Americans are more likely to ASSUME THE RISK of continuing to use the battery after a collision. You think this makes the American citizens "nancies"? I say your attitude of being afraid the battery would explode and therefore should require replacement shows fear. Your attitude shows you are unwilling to take Risk.

Oh, and just so it is clear... of course there is a difference between taking a risk and being foolhardy.

Sure, he got paid. Now, what did he have to do with that money? He has to pay it out to other people, not for things that are treats and rewards like games and toys, but for things that allow him to keep going back to work... he has to pay that money out for Rent and Gas and Utilities. Sure, he might be able to work extra hard, and earn a little more to be able to treat himself... but there it is. You work extra hard, you earn extra, and you get the treat.

If he always does the bare minimum at the job, he won't get raises, he won't earn bonuses, and he will earn just enough to get by, or live in squalor with an expensive TV.

How much did he get paid to study and turn in homework when he was in school? How much did he have to pay for rent on his room while he was in school? Did he have to buy his own school supplies? Did he have to pay for his own transportation to and from school? Did he have to purchase his own school clothes? If he had to do all of those things, then certainly, he should have gotten paid to study and do homework and pass tests. But since all of those things were supplied FOR him at someone's expense (someone other than him), why should he get rewards for doing the minimum necessary?

Your response comes across as if from someone who has already assumed that a reward has become an expectation, and that you do not appreciate the value of a reward if you think it should be automatic and default.

But... if you go to school, and do well, and get great grades, you can be REWARDED with scholarships to college, to the point where some people can get a free ride if they perform well enough. Some parents would even purchase expensive gifts like cars, for those students who performed exceptionally in school. With a Reward-for-Slacker-Performance program, why should kids bother to work hard for something big in the future, when they can just settle for the small instant gratification treats in the present? Why work harder than you are required, when you get rewarded for doing the minimum?

We are already seeing what is more effective. We currently have workers in place who were bribed with cash for grades by their parents... and they feel they are entitled to be rewarded for a bare minimum of performance.

Sure. You train a dog not to pee on the carpet, by giving them a treat when they pee outside. You reward them for having learned what they are supposed to do. You do not keep giving them the treat forever. Once they get it, you expect them to do what they are supposed to do, without having to keep giving them that reward.

Yes, people are not dogs. But when you give a child what they want, without the child learning to appreciate the value of what they have, they not only do not learn to respect what they got, but they do not learn to respect what it took to get there. When everything is treated as being exceptional, and every action is rewarded, then nothing is exceptional, and the reward becomes an expectation. It is taken for granted.

I realize that times are changing... and I realize that education today needs to be different from the education systems of yesterday...

It is just unfortunate that we have to resort to bribing students in order to get them to perform at the level they *should* perform at.

There was a time when there existed three basic levels.
You got punished when you did what you weren't supposed to, you got rewarded when you did more than you were supposed to, and otherwise, you were expected to do what you were supposed to do without receiving either of those two. The reward was to be incentive for people to go above and beyond, and the punishment was to be a deterrent for those who did not want to do what they were supposed to.

Now, I can see how this system is somewhat similar on the surface to working in the real world... except why don't these students have to use their points to support themselves? These points are rewards for a job done. Not a job *well* done... just a job done.

However, you can't really compare this system to preparation for being in the world outside... because although people get paid for doing work, they can't just spend that on whatever they feel like. They have obligations like Rent, Food, Utilities, Gas, Insurance, etc. If you do the minimum, you will barely cover these things. This kind of system as you describe doesn't teach that. This system that you describe teaches children that even at a bare minimum of effort, they get rewarded with perks. Translate that into the world outside of school, and you get people who think that if they do NOTHING, they should be allowed to subsist at a bare level, and if they do ANYTHING, they should be rewarded for it.

Also... the rewards that the students can get... what do they have to do with education? In most schools, if you get caught with a cell phone or a mobile music player, it will get taken away... so what will that teach students? That they *should* be allowed to use these things in school, because they bought them at school with points they earned at school? What kind of mixed message would the students be getting, when they are told they cannot use the things at school which they bought at school with the points they earned in school?

I get it. People feel like they are at the end of their rope, and they have to do anything to "improve" things in the schools. But buying the grades only creates students that feel they are entitled to more than they deserve, for putting out the bare minimum of effort. Now... turn this kind of point system into a deal where the student must pay rent for their locker with their points, and they must purchase school supplies with their points... and they face a loss of points or other penalties if they do NOT spend the necessary points on their basic needs... THEN you have something there. Students who do the minimum will cover their minimum expenses. Students who are average will pay for their basics, and maybe have enough to treat themselves to something small at the end of the year. Students who perform above and beyond (straight A's plus extra credit work) will cover their needs, and be able to be extravagant with the rewards they get.

Who exactly are you preaching to... and why are you under the impression that your current audience doesn't already agree with you? That right there seems to be a problem you have missed. I personally don't print. I mean, I hit the print button, but I use a PDF writer. When I need to print an invoice for a customer, I print a PDF, and I email it to them.

You know who fills my mailbox with printed material? The government that runs my country, that's who. The governmental programs that I and my family participate in also need to have a lot of that paper material filled out and faxed to different places. Hell, we fax government forms and copies of bank statements for my father-in-law all the time.

Wait. You think that it is up to US as citizens to get our government to stop forcing us all to have a paper trail? Is there a referendum I didn't see, that I was supposed to vote on for that to happen? Or, do I need to run for some kind of office? Wait... running for some kind of office would INCREASE the amount of paper being used, and unfortunately increase the usage of the fax machine in the process. You just can't get the message out there to enough people and businesses without paper mail and fax machines. My Government can't even agree on the Office suite it uses for word processing (especially when there is a viable free option out there for all platforms).

Today, most people might have to print up a fax cover sheet on their all-in-one printer/scanner/copier/fax machine, and then use that single printed sheet they made to fax along with copies of their bank statements... in order to keep their homes from being foreclosed on.... because the mortgage company won't accept a PDF in an email. You want to blame the regular people for that? I can't even blame my government for that. That's a private entity.

So, again. Exactly who are you preaching to? Your current audience is made up of people in the choir. We aren't missing the point. We aren't faxing our responses in to /. We all know what it should be. You seem to be missing the point of how we are supposed to get what should be into the heads of those who are actually perpetrating the problem.

"a single user isn't going to hit their cap..."

-what would that cap be? No... I want you to reply with the exact bandwidth allowance that this user has. Wait. You can't do that, because "their cap" is not a universal amount. Caps vary per individual, and per ISP. You can ASSUME that a single user won't hit their cap... but that's actually a bad assumption. Take for example, people who use Yahoo Mail. Sure, it's a free service that pays through advertising. And... it forces users not only to see static ads, but it pushes streaming commercials as well. So, you can just as easily see how a single user could hit their cap checking their email on Yahoo. It doesn't matter if YOU have a pile of solutions to reduce their bandwidth.

Now... if more people have capped plans from their ISPs, then we can assume that the price for these capped plans will increase... and plans with lower caps will be offered at the original prices. Why? This is the current economic model. a 20oz bottle of Coke was $.99. Then, they started filling the market with 16oz bottles offered at $.79. Now... the 16oz bottle is $.99 and the 20oz bottle is $1.39. Those Grab Bags of Doritos? Started at $.79. They went up to $.99, and now are $1.29 or more. Same amount of chips... higher prices. Pick on the examples... but I chose examples that might be on your desk right now.

Cloud computing requires unlimited data bandwidth.

Wow. Did this get twisted around.

*I* originally said "You think it is a good thing that younger people are teaching themselves not to obey the rules, and come to the conclusion that it is OK to break the rules because you won't get caught?"
ZmeiGorynych said "If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules."
You said "Debate all you want on whether this rule or that rule is stupid or not, but breaking rules that one considers "stupid" is sometimes a moral obligation. See: Rosa Parks."

To which I replied that using Rosa Parks for an analogy was incorrect... as she was protesting, and she INTENDED to get caught. A protest doesn't do much good if no one notices. Thus, the Rosa parks card was played incorrectly.

*I* do not encourage people to ignore stupid rules. *I* do not believe it is perfectly OK to ignore stupid Rules. *I* made that abundantly clear by arguing that kids under 13 shouldn't be using Facebook... but *I* came into this discussion to straighten someone out who thought that using words to invoke feelings was no big deal, as that person posted about how Cyber Bullies were no big deal compared to Real playground bullies.

As to whether or not it is OK to ignore stupid rules if you are intentionally trying to get caught... if you are attempting to protest something, and you believe that what you are protesting against is wrong, and you must break rules to do so, then yes... it would be OK to break those rules if you were TRYING to get caught, get noticed, and have your protest recognized. Facebook Users under the age of 13 are NOT trying to get caught, and they are NOT signing up for their accounts to protest the rule they believe is stupid. They are learning that rules in general don't mean anything if their immediate whims conflict with those rules, since they can break rules and suffer no consequences.

I'm saying that she took that seat because she was tired of giving in, and she wanted the attention. IE, she intended to get caught. I'm saying that using Rosa Parks to reinforce the argument "If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules" is incorrect, because she WAS looking to get caught, so she could speak out.

Who's talking about school? You think these kids 7.5 million kids are only on Facebook at home? They are on Facebook on their phones. They are on Yahoo Answers looking for Proxy Servers so they can get on Facebook at school. So, assuming that they are NOT on Facebook at school really is just burying your head in the sand.

My post was a series of points about how words DO have impact... and you are proving that by getting upset. My post was written to have an effect... and it did.

Before someone can decide that the rules are stupid, they need to follow them and find out for themselves. Then, if they still feel the rules are stupid, then they should go about changing them. Attempting to circumvent the rules without getting caught is not about standing up for what you believe in. Facebook is not some government organization that is the ONLY way to communicate with the outside world. It is a website. You have a choice. Follow the rules, or don't use the site. What about the people who feel it's stupid to not be allowed to hack other facebook pages... should they be allowed to do it because they think the rule is stupid? Should they be allowed to do it because they can do it while thinking they won't get caught? I'm not saying they are going to hack into someone's computer and steal bank account information... then again.... what if I thought the law was stupid that I'm not supposed to hack into your home computer and steal your bank account information? What if I wanted to make charitable donations to organizations that would feed the homeless, using your money? Because I think it's stupid that I'm not allowed to do that, I should still be allowed to do it because I think I can get away with it?

Sure, you might see a huge difference between using Facebook when someone is underage, and hacking into computers... but the principle is the same. You say that if someone thinks they won't get caught, it's OK to ignore the rules. Who decides WHAT rules that principle applies to? Wouldn't that ALSO be a rule... a rule that says what rules can be ignored and what rules can't?

My post is one long "Yes, open your eyes and see how things are. If you haven't seen yet, you should. You don't know yet, but you can if you let yourself.... and ignorance is simply not knowing." There is nothing negative about ignorance... except the misconception that it is an insult.

Rosa Parks defied the rules that were keeping persons of her color from using PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

Facebook is not public transportation. Not literally, and not for the sake of the comparison you are making.

If you are reasonably sure you won't get caught, and you ignore the rules... then you are NOT attempting to change the rules for the better and you have no interest in improving the situation for anyone other than yourself. You are simply attempting to circumvent the rules and get away with something you know you are not supposed to do. If you are going to use Rosa Parks as an example, you ARE sure you WILL get caught, you do not CARE if you get caught, and you ignore the rules anyway.

If these kids all agree that Facebook should be open to children younger than 13, then they should be attempting to change the rule... not lie about their age and circumvent the rule. Where does it stop though? 11? What about all the 10 year old kids that want to get online, and think that it is stupid to have the 11 year old age restriction? More importantly, most kids under 12 think a TON of things are stupid that really aren't. There are a great number of them who may think that a drinking age is stupid... does that mean they should be allowed to drink alcohol... just because they think it is stupid? Am I comparing using Facebook to drinking alcohol? No. I'm comparing one rule that young kids may think is stupid to another rule that young kids may think is stupid.... and pointing out how the argument that a 12 year old doesn't have the experience and capabilities of properly deciding what really *IS* stupid. 12 year old kids haven't developed enough to properly make decisions based on moral obligations. Ok, some may... but not 7.5 million.

So again, using the Rosa Parks card here is irresponsible. Sure... she was tired, and she wanted somewhere to sit. She wasn't a 12 year old. Heck, she'd probably agree that 12 year old kids shouldn't be on Facebook. I doubt seriously she was opposed to ALL rules, and I don't think she would advocate anarchy.

I agree with the fact that they are not equal... but not for the reasons you say they are not equal. For every playground bully, there are maybe 100 online bullies. If you have EVER spent time on a online forum, you would know this. Oh, I know that slashdot is SIMILAR to a forum in how it is set up, but there are far fewer bullies and trolls here than compared to a place like Yahoo Answers, or any gaming forum. Yes, I'm sure you could respond with some clever remark about how I must not be aware of the bullies and trolls here... but that would just be ignorant on your part.

You say "if junior can't handle someone saying mean things about him online then he'll always be a momma's boy." so... you imply that people shouldn't allow words to hurt them, and in the same sentence you choose to use an offensive phrase to insult and offend people. That's no different than saying if a bully isn't stood up to, then the kid he is bullying deserved the beat-down. I mean, if the kid can't defend himself, he should learn how to fight... right? You do realize that it is far easier to physically lash out at an issue, then mentally process it properly... right? Not to pick on people with disabilities, or really small children, but we can use their experiences as an example. Looking at very small children... before they learn to speak properly, they learn to hit. Something scares them, angers them... they don't process it, they lash out. Look at retarded individuals or autistic individuals. Violence is often a reaction that must be dealt because that is a FAR easier way to deal with what they are feeling. So, it is harder for Junior to deal with someone saying mean things than it is for Junior to deal with someone hitting him. Junior would much rather have a black eye than have the stigma of being a "momma's boy" follow him throughout his school career. Again, if you don't realize that, you are lacking the knowledge of how things are... and by definition that is ignorant.

You aren't upset when I point out how ignorant you are about these things, are you? It doesn't bother you... does it?

Now, add to that the fact that there is a separation of the individual from the incident, that occurs when there is a case of cyber-bullying... and it is FAR easier for an every day common Joe who would NEVER be a bully in real life to become a bully online. In fact, there are quite a number of people who would actually be VICTIMS of real life bullying that take up cyber-bullying as a way to overcompensate. When people can't see your face, and you can't see theirs... it makes it FAR easier to say things that would sting and stick with someone. When you can post something for the WORLD to read, and then pass that around to all of someone's friends.. that has a lasting impact. Are you that ignorant of how actions on the internet are costing some people their jobs? Do you really think that what happens here on the internet (and gets cached by Google) doesn't have an impact?

"To pretend that the online variety are a special threat is ridiculous." WAKE UP! How many kids have committed suicide because of a playground bully? Now, how many kids have committed suicide because of an ONLINE bully? When you were in Jr. High school... if someone started passing around photographs of you having homosexual relations... or relations with a person 50 years your Sr... how would that have made you feel? What if there was NOTHING you could do from EVERYONE at the school seeing those photos? It doesn't matter if those photos were faked. Ok. Don't like photos? What if all of a sudden a notebook appeared, and it looked just like yours, and inside there were all these horrible things written about your friends, and your teachers... and that notebook got passed around and shown to everyone? What if it LOOKED like it was from you... I mean, it LOOKED like it was your handwriting, even to you? This is no different than a cyber bully setting up a fake facebook page (as has already been done) and making it look like their target is saying and doing all these nasty things.

You think it is a good thing that younger people are choosing to immerse themselves in Facebook? You think it is a good thing that younger people are teaching themselves not to obey the rules, and come to the conclusion that it is OK to break the rules because you won't get caught? You don't think they are learning that lesson by ignoring the age restrictions? You think it is a good idea that kids are spending more and more time on Facebook at school, rather than doing their work? Exactly how ignorant are you? There seems to be no limit to what you do not know.

... and I hope my words didn't upset you too much. You don't want to come across as a hypocrite now, do you?

Do you have a Television? Do you have a Radio? Is that Radio in your car? If you have a Television and you have cable, or even if you use a set top antenna, you are a hypocrite. Not that I'm trying to start a flame war here... I just want you to see the larger picture. If you use ANYTHING other than a Unix box to get information and entertainment... and I mean anything from a portable mp3 player to a cell phone with internet access to a car radio to a television... then you are using other devices, and you have invested in other devices to get entertainment and information. Thus, if you wish to use the Instant Play service that Netflix offers, you have to get one of the many different devices available that will allow you to make use of that service. Just like you had to get a Television and a cable box to be able to watch all the channels you wanted to watch... well, a cable box, a set top antenna, or a satellite dish. I mean, I imagine you can build a mini-itx box for your car, and use a wireless broadband modem to allow you to listen to the radio in your car... but did you actually do that? Of Course, if you HAVE to use Netflix, you could just limit yourself to the DVDs they ship you when you want them... seeing as their selection of movies on DVD is larger than their instant play selection.... and newer releases are available on DVD far earlier than they are on Instant Play.

No, I doubt the researchers forgot to read that short informative piece about a Finnish gum that contains Xylitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol however, the US Army is not claiming to be the first to use an artificial sweetner in their gum, nor are they claiming to be the first to use Xylitol specifically. Now, if you read the article on Xylitol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol and there is a link again, you will see that it is COMPLETELY different from a protein that attacks the bacteria that causes plaque... KSL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSL they are calling it. Note, on the link I just provided, KSL is notes as a synthesized peptide. So... the US Army's development with KSL, is very different and unrelated to Xylitol. I guess reading the article *WOULD* have been helpful in avoiding Idiot status.