Slashdot Mirror

It's even more BS when you consider what percentage of Android users actually pirate apps.

Oh yeah? What percentage is that? Its trivial for app makers to calculate piracy rate for apps which contact their servers and they can co-relate it with sales - and they do just that. Some developers have even released their data to their public e.g. Radiant - http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4c56f45d7f8b9a4a0b470300-392-614/radiant.jpg

Given that most Android users don't pirate software, the question becomes [..]

What given? You have to first demonstrate that its true..

You didn't cite a single source.

I thought I was pretty up-front about where those came from, and I don't think I presented it as my own, comprehensive research into the market intricacies of mobile platforms.

But if you wanted my search terms, I think it was something like, "piracy ios vs android" or "developer ios vs android". Going a little further for those who don't want to look...

First one was probably: http://www.diasks2.com/post/20172033158/ios-vs-android-a-comparison-for-first-time
or maybe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2012/jun/10/apple-developer-wwdc-schmidt-android
or maybe
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2012/05/android-app-sales-piracy-matters-seasons-dont/

There are about a billion more if you care to read them.

Second was probably: http://www.develop-online.net/news/38848/Android-app-pirated-2300-more-than-iOS-edition
Though here's one that says 90% - http://keyeslabs.com/joomla/blogs/i-think-im-becoming-an-android/136-android-the-perfect-piracy-storm
and one that says they had 83%, if you prefer - http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/05/wired-uk-android-game-piracy/

Third was something like: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-ios-vs-android-fragmentation-2012-6
or
http://opensignalmaps.com/reports/fragmentation.php

Of course there are another 8 gazillion results for each of these. I said only what I saw.

That aside, many of these are topics we've covered extensively here on Slashdot. If you think it's all FUD, you're obviously welcome to discuss and I'll be interested to see it. I have no real vested interest in the results besides being a user.

working their way down to the grunt workers

No, they wealth is trickling SIDEWAYS into tax-shelters.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-21-trillion-31-trillion-offshore-tax-havens-2012-7?op=1

http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-daniels-wrote-what-has-to-be-the-nicest-cease-and-desist-order-of-all-time-2012-7

Don't want to risk damaging them.

Of course. Much better to damage cheaper, more expendable, replaceable components.

And of course, it's much better to talk about this detector issue than the 36 percent Of Fukushima kids who have abnormal thyroid growths. We don't want people to think there may be negative consequences to nuclear power.

1. "It is extremely rare to find cysts and thyroid nodules in children."

2. "This is an extremely large number of abnormalities to find in children."

3. "You would not expect abnormalities to appear so early — within the first year or so — therefore one can assume that they must have received a high dose of [radiation]."

4. "It is impossible to know, from what [officials in Japan] are saying, what these lesions are."

Dr. Helen Caldicott, pediatrician, about the implications of the study.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-children-have-abnormal-thyroid-growths-2012-7

Microsoft isn't about money and they never have been. They're about control. If they have control they can demand money and their "customers" have little choice but to pay. Oracle works the same way though frankly Oracle's mind bending powers are even more inexplicable. Oracle must have hired the same guys who designed the sales pitch for Encyclopedia Brittanica - that was an amazing pitch.

Microsoft going from 90% control of everything in IT including mobile to 33% of everything including mobile is a significant loss of control. Losing also every whit of influence in mobile - the only growth sector - at the same time is an even bigger deal. Microsoft can't go to carrier CEOs today and say "we might let you carry our Windows Phone devices if you suck up to us enough" like they could do when Windows Mobile was nearly 40% of smart devices and mobile smart devices were a tiny fraction of PCs. Verizon - the largest US provider - pushed the KIN and they are since reluctant. Now they have to petition the secretary of the secretary of the guy who adds phones for a carrier to set a meeting to discuss potential partnerships, and they have to bring the green suitcase or they won't even make it past security even with an appointment.

Google knew this when they bought Android for $50 million. They've gotten good value from this weapon in their war for survival, gaining so much control of mobile as it has grown larger than PCs that they provide the software for all of half of all the devices sold. For comparison Microsoft has spent about $16 billion on their Online Services Division (320x as much) since Steve Ballmer swore he was going to "fucking kill Google" (sorry for the language, but it's in the court document) in the legendary chair-throwing incident to no effect whatsoever. Actually to negative effect since Windows Mobile was doing far better without help. That's a lot to spend on a grudge and get less than nothing back. The Google guys aren't just out-thinking them, they're proving to have far more foresight also - probably a result in them being fully engaged in innovating rather than surviving their Survivor: Redmond working conditions. Or maybe because by being a challenger, Google must strive.

It's been never since Microsoft had to earn their market share. They lucked into it with a shaky deal with IBM on day 1, and leveraged that control since. Not only do they not know how to earn it - they never have known. Microsoft has always worked from a position of power and used that dominant position to take whatever they wanted from technology businesses. They will continue to work as if they're working from a position of power even when they're not in one because they don't know any other way. They don't know how to earn it because they've never had to. Obviously believing you have immense power and acting on that when you don't is an illness called "megalomania" - a psychosis they are unlikely to be cured of without long confinement in a straightjacket. By the time they're healed and sane again it will likely be too late for the shareholders.

Such is always the way with dominant companies: pride goeth before a fall. There's a long list of companies who fell this way in mobile: Palm, RIM, Nokia are but a few. Empires end eventually and it's starting to look like Microsoft's day in the sun is over. The decline will be long and slow as they have many fully committed acolytes - some in the highest levels of governments the world over - but eventually change must come. As humans we crave progress, and progress is antithesis to monopoly.

Strangely I was reading this yesterday that has the same sentiment. When even business people are shunning Microsoft and not just the techies, you know they're turning that corner.

Major quote fail. Use preview.

Like I said, it was not to collect personal data. That data was picked up as extra payload.

Then they should have just collected the data they needed on the fly. They recognized the privacy concern and then ignored it.

You say things like "embarrassing findings", when the fact was that they didn't want personal names released to the public.

A lot more than just names were redacted, as can be seen by the original redactions at the behest of Google. The FCC told Google in their letter, "Disclosure of this information may cause commercial embarrassment, but that is not a basis for requesting confidential treatment."

Yeah, I sorry, but it is not that simple. In a huge system like Google's, thing are marked for deletion, and then overwritten later on when the space is needed. There is no point in zeroing out anything, since the data is all encrypted anyway.

Laughable. If they can update data on the fly, which they do, then they can delete it as well. And it doesn't matter that it is encrypted when law enforcement demands a copy.

So, you are saying that it was not a mistake? That they did it intentionally? That there was some motivation for them to, what was it, reveal status messages to peoples' contacts?

It was an intentional product decision to publicly share contacts by default in order to fill out their social network. See, for example, this article:

"When you first post to Google Buzz, there is a dialogue box that reads "Before participating in Buzz, you need a public profile with your name and photo."

It also says -- albeit in tiny gray letters against a white background, "Your profile includes your name, photo, people you follow, and people who follow you."

But it does not say that these publicly viewable follower lists are made up of people you most frequently email and chat with."

But the actual information is disposed of fairly quickly. I think it's six months or so.

Try reading the article. Your original claim, "Generally, Google likes to get rid of that stuff as soon as possible.", is completely demolished:

"Google logs an astonishing amount of data, including the search logs from its flagship product. It keeps this data indefinitely, so searching for a combination of yourwife'sname and youraddress and "rat poison in her cereal" is not a particularly smart idea (though search users do this sort of thing anyway).

But the company does "anonymize" this data eventually. The last octet of the IP address is wiped after nine months, which means there are 254 possibilities for the IP address in question (.0 and .255 are reserved addresses). After 18 months, Google anonymizes the unique cookie data stored in these logs.

This isn't especially ambitious; Europe's data protection supervisors have called for IP anonymization after six months and competing search engines like Bing do just that (and Bing removes the entire IP address, not just the last octet). Yahoo scrubs its data after 90 days."

You're not looking hard, or you are using the wrong search engine. Try, "google ftc focused on 2009 help page". It's all over the place.

That's because the 2009 date references a help page, not code as you claimed. The code was intentionally written to work around Safari's cookie blocking. There seems to be a pattern here of you not having your facts straight.

Yeah, good luck breaking into a Google datacenter. You have no idea.

First, I mentioned three agents: Government, hackers, and misbehaving employees. You only addressed one of them. Second,

The accumulated deficit of OSD is now about $16 billion. Any way you slice it that's a lot to spend on a grudge.

Drug trafficking would never have become a problem if governments hadn't created the giant void in the market

New results in from Portugal confirm what people who can do math have been saying all along.

I thought it was HSPA that's not really 4G. LTE seems to be much faster.

I can't comment on the others, but Canonical is most certainly NOT making money. They're burning far more money than what's coming in and given Shuttleworth's attitude (i.e. So what?) it doesn't look like they'll be profitable any time soon.

While profits might be anathema to some in the open source world, a business needs to break even if it's going to have long term survivability.

Iceland did, very recently discuss switching their currency to the Canadian dollar.

Blah Blah Blah Tax Cuts. Shit, there was pork in that legislation for everybody even the bottom two brackets 10 and 15% got something. Most of us got a 2% reduction in our rates. WHooopity shit.
For those who have a lot of money and those like CEOs who take their money in terms of stock options, they're paying a much lower capital gains tax. For a lot of us, that doesn't really take a bite out of my tax bill.

I did look at the 2003 vote and it was a tight vote with Cheney breaking the tie in the Senate. That's how a democracy works. And since you bring up the ACA, and it is a piece of shit in terms of legislative triumph, it was passed and now affirmed by the Supreme Court. So, it's like the old adage: garbage in, garbage out. I don't think there was one congressman or senator that put in the work to write the legislation. It came, as usual, from lobbyists and was cobbled together by staff. The folks on the hill have a way of doing things and mostly, it's not their own work.

Oh and check your facts, the grand poobah of the democrats, nancy pelosi, proposed extending the tax cuts for people making up to $1,000,000. Strangely enough, It's about the most intelligent thing I've heard her say and it shows something that we haven't seen in a long time, compromise. Or maybe it's the fact that her personal finances would be negatively impacted or her husbands?

I hold both Republicans and Democrats with the same contempt. They're incompetent at doing what's best for the country and they put their own agendas before the public agenda. Frankly they are irresponsible when it comes to money matters and I doubt most of them could pass a simple economics 101 class. You can't keep spending more than you have. If you keep taking money in taxes, you dry up capital and that's what fuels job creation. No Money = No Jobs and the biggest employer in this country is the Federal Government. Your tax dollars going to paper pushers and bureaucrats and the pork keeps going on and on. I'm not advocating giving the rich people a break, far from it but you can't keep expecting to have a fair tax system when half of the people in this country don't pay federal income taxes. So, if you earn money and pay federal income tax, you may not be a 99% you're a 50%... Oh yeah, the 1% get most of the breaks too so as they say them that has the gold, makes the rules.

But this is Slashdot again, so I'm still amazed at why this has become a political discussion on which party will lead us of the cliff quicker. The way I see it, we're getting pushed along just fine so vote whoever you want into office, it won't make much difference. I do know however that I wouldn't trust anybody in congress to hold my wallet or my checkbook for that matter.

It's not just IT. This link is a graph of all reported employees in America over the past four years: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-chart-public-sector-vs-private-sector-employment-2012-6 In summary, the number of workers in the private sector is back up to about where it was in 2008 (which is still too small for a growing economy). It's the lagging public sector that's keeping overall employment rates below where they were before the recession.

Google pays Apple 100 million a year to be the default search engine.

Not according to this.

Google testified before Congress that 66% of their mobile revenue came from IOS devices.

Seems unlikely now there are more Android devices out there than iOS, and the gap is only getting bigger. Unless iOS users are more likely to click on ads or something, which also seems unlikely.

... that Apple already has a patent on this.

Not in the slightest. When they launched the Xbox 360 they were negative by about 4 billions thanks to the original xbox, but the 360 made huge losses again. And it's still faltering.

According to Eichenwald, Microsoft had a prototype e-reader ready to go in 1998, but when the technology group presented it to Bill Gates he promptly gave it a thumbs-down, saying it wasnâ(TM)t right for Microsoft. âoeHe didnâ(TM)t like the user interface, because it didnâ(TM)t look like Windows,â a programmer involved in the project recalls. ...

A former official in Microsoftâ(TM)s Office division tells Eichenwald that the death of the e-reader effort was not simply the consequence of a desire for immediate profits. The real problem for his colleagues was the touch screen: âoeOffice is designed to inputting with a keyboard, not a stylus or a finger,â the official says. âoeThere were all kinds of personal prejudices at work.â According to Microsoft executives, the companyâ(TM)s loyalty to Windows and Office repeatedly kept them from jumping on emerging technologies. âoeWindows was the godâ"everything had to work with Windows,â Stone tells Eichenwald. âoeIdeas about mobile computing with a user experience that was cleaner than with a P.C. were deemed unimportant by a few powerful people in that division, and they managed to kill the effort.â from -> http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-was-destroyed-by-its-stack-review-process-according-to-new-vanity-fair-expose-2012-7

Balmer instituted a stack review process which is better suited for a sales organization rather than a software development company. That process is killing morale and innovation. Everyone there is afraid to work on side projects for fear of being reviewed as mediocre or at the bottom.

See:

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-was-destroyed-by-its-stack-review-process-according-to-new-vanity-fair-expose-2012-7

Isn't it amazing how Microsoft seems to have been put on the defensive? What a change from not that long ago, They no longer seem to have much strategic vision, and just respond (usually poorly) to Apple's moves. How freaked out they must be now that the iPhone alone makes Apple more revenue and profit than all of Microsoft.

The last time France had >38C temperatures over 14,000 elderly died, many in understaffed hospital wards while government employees were on vacation.

third world indeed

There is no usable public transit system, and what there is smells of urine and feels highly dangerous

Stay away from public transit; that's for 'students' and the welfare state's underclass which are increasingly synonymous and equally dangerous to phone/pad/laptop/credit-card equipped business people. We drive cars in the US.

The power lines are not buried, they are just haphazardly strung up on big poles all over

New construction (<30 years old) doesn't look like that -- power lines are buried. Existing infrastructure doesn't get improved. Municipalities and their quasi-goverment power companies have better things to spend their lavish budgets on than burying power lines.

Wow. So wrong in so many ways. I'll just pick one because I'm bored enough to respond to an AC.

> First, redo the Mac Pro. Make a chassis that works like a tower, but
> can have a rack drawer attached so it can be slammed into a standard
> enclosure. Offer not just 8Gbs FC cards, but NICs with enough packet
> offloading power so FCoE is workable.

You realize that Apple has access to Apple's sales data, right? They know what is selling and what isn't. The Mac Pro is a sliver of their sales compared to iMacs and MacBooks, and making it better has the potential to make it grow to... a slightly larger sliver. Oh, and did I mention that all Mac sales are only a small portion of their income in the first place? They hardly need to listen to any of your suggestions at all.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-31/home/30073202_1_income-tax-federal-income-state-and-local-income

Reality, the antidote for liberalism

Sir, I must call poppycock on your assertion that racism is rife in the Southland.

Speaking to segregation in the south.

I have lived in TX, LA, my neighbor were white, black, and all shades in between. As a matter of fact I would submit that the best race relations in the country are to be found in the South.

You Yankees need to check yoselves.

It has, you just have to be willing to see it: http://www.businessinsider.com/ipad-creative-2010-10?slop=1 http://technologizer.com/2011/12/05/how-the-ipad-2-became-my-favorite-computer/

I wondered why Tennessee. Is Tennessee the first place you would go to get extremely high-risk major surgery?

This article explains the process a bit better and how it helps to have money. That is, he did beat the system by shopping around, but he did not have to bribe anyone to get to the top of the list.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-steve-jobs-got-sick-2010-04

A forced changes causes a vocal minority to be vocal. A fraction of a percent of the user base might close their accounts, but more likely they just talk about how they're really close to doing it. The noise dies down, the vast majority of their active users accept the changes and move on (if they're even aware of them). Facebook wins. A couple months later, rinse and repeat.

Sounds like Congress.

It's management alright. It's been management for years. Microsoft consistently hires the best people in the field (well, those that Google doesn't snag—prior to that, though, they were nearly unchallenged, and consequentially MS has had a huge number of very respectable older researchers and engineers, including a large contingent of ex-DEC people) and then squashes them with bad managers, who spend so much time politicking and infighting that they can't recognize genius like the Courier.

Unfortunately this is an increasing trend in the whole software industry; the very recent example of Diablo 3's utter failure to live up to hype, even though it's now the fastest-selling game in history, can largely be attributed to management changes in Activision. The underlying problem seems to be hiring management and leadership from non-computing sectors instead of promoting from within, although in MS's case it's more like a long-term family feud.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-21/tech/29982282_1_apple-stores-steve-jobs-brain

I'm sure that their latest effort will have all the quality and attention to detail of the Xbox 360.

At $599 for the WiFi only version, they'll have plenty of time to handbuild them...

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-surface-will-be-wifi-only-and-start-at-599-report-2012-6

Gee, what happened there around early 2000 ?

Microsoft has had a great run for a long time. Comparing Microsoft vs Apple market cap for the last 20 years or so, it's very premature to call Apple the winner. Cellphones just don't entrench like enterprise software infrastructure. Apple's profits could nosedive completely with the release of one breakthrough competing product, whereas Windows cannot be displaced so easily.

A PCMag opinion piece titled 'A Microsoft Tablet Would Be Dumb' says 'The only real reason to introduce a Microsoft-branded tablet is because Microsoft couldn't get anyone else to make a Windows RT tablet.'

Looks like knee-jerk anti-Microsoftism to me. Nobody has said the same thing about Google branded tablets, despite the reports Google intends to release one in the next month or two. Moreover, several PC makers, noteably Asus, have already announced Windows RT tablets.

Microsoft have engaged in some sordid business practices, and prior to Windows 7 their desktop operating systems were terrible. But just making up any old crap about them makes you look stupid, not Microsoft.

Domestic use, the new terms in the NDAA, less posse comitatus, the US been seen as a battlefront, loitering ability of a drone ...
Add in the http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-11/us/us_maryland-drone-crash_1_drone-crash-site-routine-training?_s=PM:US
at $176 million apiece and the vision FAA of 30000 US drones.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/news/31036604_1_drones-unmanned-aircraft-new-bill

No corporation can force you to buy their product

Buying a product is no longer a pre-requisite for a corporation to litterally bankrupt you.

Look at Goldman Sachs in Greece... Goldman illegally used so-called "shorting" to dump "junk bonds" on the unsuspecting public. This caused Greece to go bankrupt and Goldman to make billions upon billions while Greeks go without essential services and slowly starve to death. These "high-frequency" trades are illegal in most countries, but because the US (since Citizens United) considers them free speach, they aren't banned in that country. Even though the FED is lending the 22 largest banks more than $100 bn every night, none of that is required to be reported to those who are lending the money (ie the citizens). GoldmanSachs could just as easily bankrupt the US as they did Greece... look for them to move to Beijing and then you'll see what a recession is really like.

well, Peter Schiff's clients appear to have lost money during the crisis, e.g. , and the hyperinflation he has predicted didn't come to place. According to your logic, everybody who invested into housing during the bubble was the wisest man on earth -- and suddenly stopped being so when the bubble collapsed. But maybe I fail to see your logic.

Anyway, if Krugman is independent of the market's movements by not investing based on his predictions, it appears to me that he is in a much better position to give neutral advice than somebody who depends on their bets turning out successful.

how Krugman's predictions on how the crisis would pan out have been so accurate if he doesn't understand any economics?

- Krugman couldn't see the crisis coming until he was already IN it, near the collapse, there (2005 and 2006) are people (2002) who predicted (2006) it and explained why it would happen in advance.

Krugman in fact WANTED a housing bubble, same as him wanting a fucking war with aliens actually, he believes destroying assets, counterfeiting money and creating bubbles is good for economics, he is a charlatan, not an economist. He is one of those 'economists' used to justify the policies of the gov't, regardless of the administration, they use him - he is 'main stream'.

I haven't seen something like that since the time my company accidentally hired strippers for our Vegas-themed Christmas party.

That's tame compared to the party that Munich Re threw for it's top "performers" back in 2007. They had pre-paid prostitutes who kept track of the number of "uses" with stamps with everything happening in a large communal steam bath. What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but even Vegas couldn't throw a party like that. If Vegas want's to compete with other gambling destinations, they will need to dial up the debauchery or risk losing their "sin city" reputation to other more worthy contenders.

Uh, no. All that would happen is your taxes will be raised to cover the additional costs. If there is enough political support to back this kind of project, there will be enough money and power behind it to obfuscate the tax increases necessary to continue funding it.

You can't fight the government by wasting their money. They perfected that process long ago.

Has the behavior of the TSA taught us nothing?

In the short-term, you are correct. But eventually you cannot kick the debt can down the road any further. This reality is already hitting parts of Europe and parts of the US:
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-most-bankrupt-cities-2010-12

I'm sorry friend but it IS a corpse, you've just been lied to. look up the REAL numbers on unemployment, not the crap the POTUS gives but the ones counting those that have given up and you'll see we are getting close to 25% unemployment. And a LOT of our "wealth" is nothing but fakery, financial corps shifting money and doing micro-second transactions on the market to skim a little more out of the system. did you know we make LESS computer tech now than we did in 1975?

Here friend why don't you start with some real numbers and not the horseshit the media has been feeding you, but don't look at it on a full stomach as it'll make you sick. I've traveled all over the south, you know, the place that supposed to be doing better because it don't have unions? Go to the business districts in the small towns and even most of the large ones all over the south and you'll see abandoned factories as far as they eye can see, just as the boarded up stores and homes are everywhere.

I'm sorry but they are lying to you friend, because they know that if you and your fellow Americans knew the truth there would be trouble. instead they just keep printing money to hand out in the hope they can keep you docile while their friends steal as much as they can but they know its gonna collapse. wish i still had the figures but something like 18% of or fortune 100 have quietly sold their US holdings and moved overseas. they see what is coming and don't want to be here when it hits, but its gonna be REAL nasty friend, best be prepared.

Microsoft currently doesn't make money on anything but Windows and Office -- everything else is either runs at loss, or has so much money sunk in it while it was being developed or ran at loss, it will take significant amount of time to turn profit.

Citation? Exchange - for example - would appear to be a very profitable product, XBox has been hugely profitable for the last 5 years

MSFT operating profit by division. Xbox comes under "Entertainment and Devices", a division that has historically been a loss leader. The vast bulk of the profit is from Windows + Office + Windows Server. Basically Microsoft's profits as a whole are largely dependent on sales of Windows and Office: profits jump 31% on strong Office sales, profits stagnate as Windows sales fall.

I've heard many of the problems with the public school administration aren't problems at private schools. The claim is that "at will employment" makes for a better relationship with the administration. I don't know how true that is, and I wish I could think of where I saw the original discussion I would ask some private school teachers their feelings on the matter and see what kinds of response you're able to get.

Alternatively, you could always look for work in Finland :-p

At the end of the day if it's only available on iOS and Mac then it's essentially on a minority of devices on what is now a minority platform.

Uh, you're kidding, right? Apple's inventory stock has been compared to restaurants, that must get rid of it because it's perishable. It's ridiculous how competitive Apple is right now against ALL of the Android phone manufacturers. I'm not sure their growth rate will last, but you're just silly to claim the iOS platform is merely a "minority platform." It's not like 2-5% marketshare, like the Mac used to be... they're neck and neck against EVERY OTHER phone manufacturer put together. Mac's marketshare is growing, too, but still under 20% I would guess. I doubt seriously anyone at Microsoft now, or even Google, would share your dismissive views of the "minority" that's ever increasingly eating their marketshare.

Their mobile email client is absolutely the best.

I believe you meant to say their mobile ecosystem. Their email client is good but without the RIM infrastructure it would be just another email client.

I want RIM to succeed and I still believe they can but they must execute the rollout of BB OS Ten flawlessly and convince a lot of demographics what they have to offer has value beyond an iOS/Android/WP ecosystem. A very tall order but far from impossible.

I don't see how it's relevant, since the Olympic Committee isn't a profit making corporation, but is actually only a group who organise a non-profit event for the promotion of sports worldwide, right? What's a trademark if they're not actually trading in anything after all.

The Olympics haven't been non-profit in many years. (I'm sure they're officially non-profit for tax purposes, but not in the "we don't make money at this" sense).

For instance, between 2005-2008, the IOC (home of "Olympics, Inc.") generated nearly six billion dollars in revenue. And remember, the terms of hosting the Games is that you, not they, are responsible for any and all cost overruns.

There's plenty of reading out there showing the real reasons why cities and countries bid for the Five Ring Circus. (Vancouver in particular is a nice case study.)

Is Paris Hilton is your worst case example?

Yes she has an extravagant lifestyle. However she also has a significant number of active business ventures including publishing, fashion, her own hotel chain and mobile gaming.

Far more of her money is going into productive investment than you seem to be assuming.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-01/entertainment/30076238_1_piers-morgan-paris-hilton-product-lines

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/paris-hilton-invades-asia/

When rich people give away excess money to charities, that does not absolve them of guilt for the actions that made them wealthy in the first place. Just because Bill Gates gives away a bunch of money, that doesn't excuse he got that money using illegal monopoly tactics. You can't get credit for giving away money that you stole from taxpayers in the first place.

In recent years in particular, Buffett's wealth has been acquired using insider information from his cronies in the White House, actions that would have resulted in jail time for a less connected investor. Here's the way the circle works:

• Buffett and Goldman Sachs contribute buckets of money to the democratic party and the Obama campaign.
• When Goldman was in risk of going under, Buffett invests $5B in them to keep them going. It was a no risk bet because Buffett's buddies let him know before the general public that GS was getting a bailout. Notes on that at Trade With The Ultimate Insider.
• Buffett publicly thanks the US government for bringing stability to the markets, by which he really means money in his company's pockets.
• All the borrowed money plus $1.6B divident profit flows back to Buffett within 3 years.

There's endless stories on this theme, including major trades around the US auto industry bailout too. I believe the most recent is the Keystone XL mess. Peter Schweizer's "Throw Them All Out" book has a whole section devoted to Warren Buffett's tricks where he abuses his political ties for profit. Here's a video segment from Schweizer summarizing that. Buffett's money is just as dirty as if he'd robbed you with a gun; don't like the kindly old man disguise fool you.

Many Android Phones using stock Google Code do not account for the issue of the leap seconds. Other versions of Android (Cyanogenmod) do have the correct time. There is even an app that fixes this problem for rooted phones. Just because they have access to this information doesn't mean they use it ;)

Don't take my word for it, take Neil DeGrasse Tyson's ...

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-29/tech/31252904_1_android-phones-gps-satellites-iphone

The big deal is that the analysts working the IPO were providing guidance, which is a level above a joe schmoe analyst doing estimates. When an underwriter bank's analyst changes his/her guidance due to material insisder information, that new guidance has to be given to all investors, not just the underwriter bank's chosen ones.

guidance, not estimates