And what fee do you think is right for someone that has to supply unlimited bandwidth and insfratructure support to get your app to people everytime they want to reinstall it as well as free 5gb of backup space.

You mean like Microsoft already has in place to support its customers? With its online store, and skydrive?

Why should Microsoft have to give 30% to apple to duplicate infrastructure it ALREADY has in place.

Microsoft isn't a small app developer with no brand recgonition and no infrastructure.

The ONLY reason they "need" apple is because Apple's walled-garden prevents them from interacting directly with customers.

I don't see it. Here's one...

"We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya.

Biden -- rated mostly false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/12/joe-biden/biden-says-we-werent-told-Libya-security-requests/

They ~interpret~ Biden's statement, to determine what he could have meant a number of groups by "we".

They acknowledge It could very well be true that he and Obama weren't personally told Libya had

And then decide its 'mostly false' because even if by 'we' he meant potus and vpotus the statedepartment knew, and that it was misleading to imply otherwise.
requested more security.

They fact checked the claim "American jobs were being outsourced and lost because Chrysler would build Jeeps in China."

Politifact interpreted what they thought the claim was, and then fact checked it.

Statements like "The sky is blue." are simpler to interpret but you still have to interpret that the speaker is making a claim that the sky is blue. All but the very simplest of statements require interpretation.

You are plainly mistaken when you argue that politifact wasn't checking facts.

Now you can handwave all you want that poltifact interpreted the claim Romney was making wrong, and fact checked "the wrong claim". But even Mitt Romney didn't say that, so why would you spend so much time claiming that Romney might have meant something else, when even he didn't?

This statement by Obama was a bigger lie, "I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class, asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way,"

This is no deception there. Obama was clear. You can agree or disagree with the statement, because it is his opinion.

And its a statement of a pretty abstract belief about macro-economic theory; it is almost ridiculous to compare it to a statement about where jeeps are made.

The theory of fact checkers is that they will check the facts that politicians use and point out when those facts are wrong. In this case, Politifact, as part of a "fact check", called that statement a lie?

The "lie" was not that jeeps would be made in china. The lie was that "American jobs were being outsourced and lost because Chrysler would build Jeeps in China."

And he put that ad out in Ohio, where Jeeps are made, thus it didn't merely suggest that abstract American jobs were being lost, but the LOCAL economy was being affected.

It was lie of the year in large part because it took on a life of its own, and may well have contributed to Romney losing the election.

You are failing to defend Politifact, you don't have a problem with them calling it a lie because you opposed Romney.

The lie of the year the previous year was by Democrats that Republicans were going to shut down medicare -- so I don't see the partisan bias you seem to be implying exists.

See, now you are discussing what you believe that Romney should have said/how he should have made his point. That is not the question.

And you are splitting semantic hairs. He strung a few true statements next to eachother calculated to alledge a fact wihtout outright stating it. And along with reporting on the veracity of the actual jeep statement, acknowledging it was true. Poltifact also reported on the implied allegation that American jobs were being outsourced to China.

I don't see anything wrong with that, especially as the implication was the entire point of the message.

"Why is a company that just received a generous bailout from the U.S. government creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S.?

Are you suggesting the Chrysler not building a factory in China to build Jeeps for the Chinese would somehow benefit Americans?

Could that money not have been better spent improving production and increasing jobs in the U.S.? If the answer to the second question is 'No", is it really a good use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help a company create jobs in China?"

If that's the message then that's what he should have said. In stead he said that "... Chrysler will build Jeep in China" and immediately followed that with "Mitt Romney will fight for American jobs".

Specifically note that he did not follow " ... build Jeeps in China" with "Mitt Romney will fight to ensure tax dollars are not spent bailing out multinational companies"

I think its pretty clear he was talking about jobs.

I do not know that Romney was saying

It's pretty clear to me, but if your still not sure then Romney should have spoken clearly and directly. Period.

After all this wasn't some off the cuff statement this was a produced commercial -- he had complete control of the message, time to review how it would be interpreted, time to run it by other people to ensure it would be interpreted they way he meant it.

If you "don't know what Romney was saying" then it was because Romney was deliberately attempting to be deceptive and misleading.

Personally I think his message was pretty clear. And your just struggling very hard to find some way of avoiding admitting it.

I don't disagree that in some cases politicians will say something ambiguous inadvertently. But this wasn't one of those times.

I'd like to know whether she's dealing directly with the streamer, or if their are middlemen, and if there are how much -they- take per play?

In both of my modifications, the fact checker does not call the original speaker a liar ... they merely add the facts which the original speaker left out

I'm perfectly fine for them to call them out as the half truths that they are. If the fact checker is compelled to 'add facts' to qualify something as true, then that says something about the original speaker don't you think?

As soon as you bring interpretation into it

You can't communicate without interpretation. And quite bluntly if a fact checker is presented with something with multiple reasonable interpretations then that should be called out as well.

"The fences didn't kill the Ostriches. The fire did. I don't think we need to worry about whether fences are leading to trapped birds because birds can fly."

fences didn't kill the Ostriches -- true fact.
fire killed the ostriches -- true fact
I don't think we need to worry about whether fences are leading to trapped birds -- authors opinion
birds can fly -- true fact

While most birds do indeed fly, the birds in question here do not fly. So while "birds can fly" is a generally true statement, its in "bald faced lie" territory in context.

If you don't think a fact checkers should call attention to that sort of deception then there is no point in fact checking because it is trivial to construct arguments using only true statements:

"Industry experts reported 8000 cars in America. Clearly we don't need to be spending billions on highway improvements."

Fact checked as true. Omitted detail: 8000 cars on the road was reported in 1900.

I want fact checkers to to interpret and rate what the speaker is actually attempting to communicate. And if there are multiple reasonable interpretations, then they should report THAT too, as the speaker is then either
a) failing to communicate effectively
b) deliberately phrasing things that way to be misleading about what they actually mean.

Neither is good, so the speaker should be called out for it.

40. People have names.

Newborn infants are often not named immediately. Whether they need an email address, user name, and permission to access a corporate domain prior to receiving a name is an entirely separate question.

But the point stands that there -are- people who are not named.

Now one could argue, and Politifact did, that Mitt Romney used that fact in a misleading way, but the fact itself is true.

He said Chrysler is going to be building Jeeps in China to imply that American jobs would be lost.

There is no other reasonable or rational way to interpret what he said. That was a bald faced lie, uttered without actually stating anything that was false

Everyone knows the best lies contain as much truth as possible, and this was easily the lie of the year.

Now, if Apple had requested a servicemark instead of a trademark, that would be a different story ... but a service mark is much harder to get.

How much harder exactly? Because they got one:

Owner Name: Apple Inc.
Legal Entity Type: CORPORATION

...
US Serial Number: 85036990
US Registration Number: 4277914
Register: Principal
Mark Type: Service Mark

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85036990&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Pretty much -this-.

I absolutely want rate limiting, session capping, hard quotas, etc. I don't really care about the ToR angle myself but I'd potentially put access through free child friendly proxy or something.

I have no intrinsic issue whatsoever with allowing proper 'guests' limited access to the internet, for free. Check their email, check maps, look up price on amazon, or a phone number, or IM their mom... whatever.

I am not however, providing a 50MB/s down 5MB/s up internet for my neighbors and their kids to use for netflix, torrents, and ultimately cancelling their own service to just squat on mine.

But I have a consumer router, and I don't have the easy ability to create a suitably isolated and secure and limited guest network, so I haven't. I've looked at Tomato and its not compatible with my router. I've looked at DDWRT and quite frankly, i can't even figure out what I'm supposed to use.

The have a supported device database, and a forum post saying not to use it. And another forum post supposedly containing current instructions, that links to other forum posts that conflict or are out of date. My current router is very new, and support seems to be listed as partial... although it appears someone got it working... per another forum post.

The whole thing is full of warnings about bricking devices, and 10 step reset processes that seem to be a bit more cargo cult than real. So I haven't tried it ... yet.

I'm not allocating an old spare PC to a task that is currently admirably being performed by a $100 box that draws half a dozen watts, and has all the switching and radio hardware built in.

So no free guest wfi for now... and this despite the fact i actually want one.

Good luck finding a PC without Windows that isn't made by Apple in U.S. retail chains.

Fast forward to a world of locked bootloaders and I could see PC vendors having a "no-OS, bare hardware, unlocked bootloader" checkbox on every single system they sell.

It would cost vendors little to do this.

The reason that it doesn't exist today is because you can already buy any computer you like and put whatever you want on it. So there is no real advantage in offering a no-OS, hardware only solution.

I wonder whether it would be legal now (if not necessarily moral) for an Antiguan citizen to do derivative works of software where the copyright holder is the FSF and change the license to a different one (e.g., a BSD variant)...

Sure, but so what? It would only be "valid" in Antigua. As soon as it's 'exported' (uploaded) back to the mainland it will still be recognized as blatant copyright infringement.

Microsoft have already mandated that systems with ARM platforms MUST NOT have an option to disable Secure Boot.

if they ship with Windows 8 RT.

There is nothing stopping asus/acer/google/ and who ever else out there from releasing ARM platforms with secure boot configured any way they like.

Perhaps, at worst, we are reaching a point int time where if you want a Windows PC you will buy one, and if you don't want a windows PC you will buy one without windows.

And the people looking to take a windows PC and convert it to a linux pc... well they're will always be someone you can take it to to flash an open bios or otherwise 'unlock it'.