Comments:

1. Desiato on February 25th, 2011 at 10:19:

   I’m really curious if McCain is still with-it enough to get upset over this.

Comments:

1. Mr. N on February 24th, 2011 at 17:44:

   In Italy there is a sentence of the Constitutional Court that states that any religious choice of an individual cannot be taken by anyone else than the individual himself.

   Its self evident that pedobaptism (baptism of infants, that’s the technical name) is not a choice of the individual, so it is plain illegal. The sentence (n. 239/84) has never been disputed, and may be used as a non-binding precedent.

2. benjamin on February 25th, 2011 at 5:20:

   When I read this headline, I thought, finally, someone is charging the pope with covering up and aiding child rape. Instead it is a case that is gone to waste everyone’s time, and achieve nothing.

Comments:

1. Mr. N on February 24th, 2011 at 18:02:

   Earthquake in Christchurch… your god almighty may be trying to tell you something

Comments:

1. Desiato on February 24th, 2011 at 15:58:

   Any time you see 800% growth, you don’t think “wow, that’s on a tear”, you think, “wow, must’ve started from almost nothing”. Duh.

2. John Sinteur on February 24th, 2011 at 16:01:

   True, but they’ll have to continue triple-digit growth for at least two more years before I’ll consider writing android software. And that’s quite something..

3. Mr. N on February 24th, 2011 at 18:00:

   May I point out that Android apps are often less expensive than Apple counterpart, and that there is plenty of very good free software?
   I guess Apple policy may have an influx on this fact, since no one asks you money if you want to write something for Android.

   Oh, and let me point out another thing. Most people I know using android use the devices as phones and email reader. I know of very few of my friends who clutter the device with pay-per-play games, fart apps and organizers that replicate the same features built in the android OS. I have 4-5 free games, 5 useful apps and honestly I feel I do not need anything else. My wife and colleagues with an iphone or a touch have a completely different approach.

   I admit Android users may be cheaper people, too. If we were trigger happy with our money, we would have spent three-to-five times the cost of our Android device in a iPhone 4 to begin with …

4. John Sinteur on February 24th, 2011 at 18:05:

   I have no problem with people deciding Android is the best for them – the more competition to Apple the better these devices will get. And if it works better for you than an iPhone, more power to you!

   I just said I won’t be writing software for it…

5. Mudak on February 24th, 2011 at 18:53:

   I’d like to point out that free apps — both on Android and the iPhone — are underwritten through ads in the apps themselves. For Android, that’s exclusively through google-owned Ad Mob. I’m not sure of the formula that pays the developers but surely Google is the big beneficiary of your free apps.

6. Desiato on February 24th, 2011 at 19:11:

   I’ll be surprised if they have less than triple digit growth in Android app sales the next two years. Even with competition from ad supported apps and with fragmentation between app stores, I’d bet on 100+% growth.

7. John Sinteur on February 24th, 2011 at 19:26:

   100% two years running would put them at $400m. I find that likely as well, and would not be surprised if they didn’t surpass that significantly. Still, that’s way, way short of the $1.7b Apple is pulling in right now, despite the fact that the Android market share is (in the US at least) bigger than the iOS market share. Google will have to do something about this…

8. Desiato on February 25th, 2011 at 10:15:

   Android’s current market share may be bigger, but their installed base is not. If the marketshare comes to substantially outpace Apple’s, they’ll catch up soon enough. Don’t need to “do” much of anything.

   Also, selling apps isn’t Google’s main business model. They may prefer free, ad-supported apps?

Comments:

1. Steffen on February 24th, 2011 at 14:57:

   It would be much better to outlaw ANY collection of religious laws which are in contradiction to the constitution and the human rights, and which are proveably a danger to society. Or at least strongly regulate these texts (make it unlawful to distribute these harmful texts to minors; selling such material only allowed with warning stickers, etc.)

   Examples for such material: The 10 commandments, huge parts of the bible, the shariah, or ‘dianetics’

2. Desiato on February 24th, 2011 at 19:07:

   I’ll bite–which part of the Ten Commandments is in conflict with the US Constitution or with human rights?

3. Steffen on February 24th, 2011 at 19:21:

   @Desiato:

   “Do not have any other gods before me.

   You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

   You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

   [...]

   You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”

   I see several violations of the constitution and of basic human rights here.

   “Freedom of Religion” is only one of them. Freedom of Speech is blatantly violated. Punishing somebody for something he has not done, this is a strong violation of “due process”. “Freedom of the Arts”.

   The danger for society: There are influential weirdos in the US who claim that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our judicial system, and they want to transform society after these anachronistic rules from the bronze-age.

4. itspast on February 25th, 2011 at 2:20:

   1a. Thou shall not be gay.
   2b. Thou shall not use recreational drugs.
   3c. Thou shall kill your enemies if you are in the armed forces.
   4f. Thou shall steal if god tells you to do it (Israel).

5. Mudak on February 25th, 2011 at 5:25:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM

6. Desiato on February 25th, 2011 at 10:22:

   Steffen, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Bill of Rights. It protects the citizens from their government only, not fro
   a religion they might choose to join.

7. Steffen on February 25th, 2011 at 12:17:

   @Desiato: Nope, it rather you who misunderstood the whole matter.

   The constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights guarantee Freedom of Religion. Nobody must be forced into practicing any religion he does not like.

   The Ten Commandments (explicitly No. 1,2 and 3) are in direct violation of this principle. It says clear without ambiguity: “I am your God. You shall have no other Gods. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God”. The “God” who is speaking here the Judeo-christian god. In other words: *Everybody* in this club must follow the Judeo-christian god. Any speaking against this god is strictly forbidden. The bible is full of gruesome threats to people who don’t submit to this god.

   Anybody is of course completely free to submit himself under a religion. But the Ten Commandments don’t speak of freedom. They speak of an obligation, without exception, and this is the violation of Human Rights. Would the Christian Taliban seize power and transform the state after the Ten Commandments, this would unambiguously mean: A Theocracy.

8. Desiato on February 25th, 2011 at 13:06:

   The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (…)”

   This was later, by the Supreme Court, extended to apply to the States as well, and has since spread farther down by judicial fiat, not because the Constitution says so.

   It’s a common misconception that the freedom of speech (in the U.S.) applies broadly, e.g. that companies are required to uphold it. That’s not the case. If I run a web forum, I’m free to delete postings I don’t like, you don’t get the right to freedom of speech there.

   Remember that the Constitution was written largely by Christians and at the very least (if you want to argue that some or many were Deists) in a context deeply steeped in Christianity. The Founders knew what the Ten Commandments say. They clearly did not think the internal commandments of the religion conflicted with the external right not to have the government dictate a state religion.

   Beyond that you’re making an argument that Christianity is illegal or invalid because you feel its commandments are addressed to those outside the religion. I find it hard to argue this rationally since it’s so silly, but I’ll just say that there’s a difference between saying something and enforcing it in practice. How does the Catholic church punish you if you don’t follow the commandments? You get excommunicated. The people who don’t follow the religion get barred from participating in it further and are told they’re no longer welcome. Doesn’t that kinda contradict your entire argument?

9. Desiato on February 25th, 2011 at 13:44:

   Oh, and while you’re responding can you let us know whether the Catholic Church gets Freedom of Speech? (to publish the Bible, that is…)

10. Mudak on February 25th, 2011 at 16:32:

    It wasn’t the SCOTUS. It was the 13th amendment that enforced the national constitution on the states.

Comments:

1. JimM on February 26th, 2011 at 5:11:

   At the risk of cherry-picking the data here:

   1969-1976: Presidents Nixon (R) and Ford (R): Decline of $473, Bottom 90% absorbed 20%

   1976-1979: President Carter (D): Growth of $1,756, Bottom 90% shared 47% of growth

   1980-1987: Reagan (R): Growth of $2,580, Bottom 90% shared 2% of growth
   1988-1991: Bush-41 (R): Decline -$2,820, Bottom 90% absorbed 42% of the decline

   1992-1999: Clinton (D): Growth of $12,224, Bottom 90% shared 33% of growth

   2000-2007: Bush-43 (R): Growth of $1,460, Bottom 90% declined

Comments:

1. Mr. N on February 24th, 2011 at 11:48:

   Nice to see that Apple is reaching Android standards…

   (Android apps explicitly state the permissions and info required when you download or update them)