culled

He was referring to this xkcd - http://m.xkcd.com/977/. The description, as stated in the article, was “You like Isaac Asimov, XML, and shoes with toes. You think the Segway got a bad rap. You own 3D goggles, which you use to view rotating models of better 3D goggles. You type in Dvorak.” I don't think that could be considered a vague personality test that can be applied to many people.

It sounds like a tall tale. It's possible that it's also true but it's got all the hallmarks of a good fictional story and that makes it seem false.

A humanities PhD requirement?

Ok, then Apple can have a larger impact in Foxconn's work policies than anyone else who is likely to be influenced by an article in the NY Times. I don't think the Chinese government especially cares about public opinion.

The actual authorities aren't self-designated, they're designated by our democratically elected government. Anonymous are the ones trying to act as "self-designated authorities".

But the content that you link to will still have ads. Good luck, but I don't see why I would pay $15 a month for this when I could go to any of the many tech aggregation sites click on their top 20 links and read the first paragraph to see if I want to read more.

Since when can you not anonymously quote part of an email that was sent to you?

But the problem with your argument is that, at least according to the article, the kids don't have a problem with the book. It's just one parent who doesn't like it and is preventing it from being assigned.

What do you mean Wikipedia? I think that's one thing that really has changed the world for the better. It's completely free, surprisingly accurate (especially if you get away from controversial topics), and completely created by volunteers. It's a fantastic resource and more useful than a lot of startups.

I think your problem is in thinking that the list is intended to be a litmus test for opinions. For instance you said "much less accuse others who might reasonably differ on any of these points." which indicates that you want to be able to point to one of these items and tell someone they're wrong.

This list is just a starting point for you to question your own opinions. Of course it's subjective, I don't think introspection is ever intended to be objective. As a starting point for introspection the list is fine; as something you could ever apply to someone else you're right it's completely worthless.

Also, what paradoxes were there? In your first post you complained that the list was subjective (which it is) but now you're saying that it contains paradoxes without ever saying what those paradoxes are.

An extra $30K is not going to make much of a difference if he's got 83 people and he wants to hire more.

It's been a few years since I've really used Digg but how does burying something prevent other people from voting on it? My impression was that once something is submitted it goes on the upcoming page where all the stories are presented chronologically and buries only affect whether it gets on the front page or not. Do things get removed from the upcoming page after a certain number of down-votes?

Of course a patent still wouldn't have helped in this case if it has been around for 50 years.

The Moth is a great podcast but there website makes it difficult to find old shows. Subscribe to the RSS feed if you want to look through their archives.

Why is the author so hung up on "Dinner For Schmucks"? It didn't seem like he's seen it yet and so far its RottenTomatoes score is a bad but not horrible 56% while Grown Ups is just at 10%. Unless he's seen it I don't think it's fair to call it the likely worst film of the year.

Is it just because no one is allowed to remake French movies?

Another example would be Richard Feynman who was apparently a great teacher. He turned down an opportunity to work at the IAS because it didn't include teaching. He also won a Nobel Prize so he wasn't too bad as a researcher either.

Clearly the success of the app store shows that there's a desire to extend the functionality of the phone. Apple just doesn't believe that there's a reasonable need to do it beyond a certain point or to do it without their permission.

However, no one is clamoring to write apps for a microwave. A microwave really just has one function and as long as it does that one thing then it doesn't really matter how the software works.

Sure if by "deliver" you mean a lot more than just making the site and by "instant" you mean a long fucking time.

I don't think that most canceled shows have many unproduced scripts (The Critic is one exception). Even if the writers know where the story was going a) getting an explanation that's just a few paragraphs isn't as satisfying as actually seeing the conclusion. b) some writers may not want to let people know what they had in store (Joss Whedon with Firefly for instance) and the ones that are willing to reveal what was planned are already doing that for their canceled shows.

" The only reason AT&T is still in business is because of Apple. "

That's a little over the top. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile are all still in business without the iPhone and AT&T was a very large carrier before they had the iPhone. AT&T would probably be doing worse than they are now without the iPhone but I seriously doubt they'd be going out of business. I'd go so far as to say that AT&T's reputation would be somewhat better without the iPhone since it seems like most of their network problems were caused because of the demands that the iPhone created.

Just curious but could you fill me in on what PHP stands for? I've tried googling it but I'm, of course, getting the other PHP.

What empirical data do you have on that?

No, he's talking about people's desire to receive attention. Advertising puts a price on getting attention from others but it generally does so to try to sell stuff not just as a self-esteem boost.

The difference of course is that Larry Page has actually created value for Google.

Not that I'm a lawyer but I believe this will be tried in civil court where the standard of proof is lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Why not wait to submit this once it's actually live?

I'm not sure what your point is, from that link: "Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)."

She's encouraging people to parody the Comedy Central executive's actions. A picture of them wouldn't do that.

True but I'm really not sure what this has to do with Apple. Those things would have happened with or without Apple.

Perhaps because the advertisements are mixed with the content.