Slashdot Mirror

Few people realize this, but Android phones don't keep time correctly. They use GPS satellites for timekeeping, which was last updated in 1982, and since then there have been 15 leap seconds added. As a result, nearly all Android devices are 15 seconds too fast. Note that iOS compensates for this and shows the correct time.

Hmm. [looks at NIST synced PC clock] Hmm. [looks at android phone]

Nope, the two match exactly to 1 second. Unless for some reason my ordinary Android phone (of which over 15 million of this exact variety were sold) qualifies as outside "nearly all" android phones, you are spouting pure nonsense.

Facebook also filed an ammended S-1 with the SEC:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512222368/d287954ds1a.htm

That says right in it:

"Our business is subject to numerous risks described in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this prospectus. You should carefully consider these risks before making an investment. Some of these risks include: ... Growth in use of Facebook through our mobile products, where our ability to monetize is unproven, as a substitute for use on personal computers may negatively affect our revenue and financial results; "

This was reported on by major financial news sources almost two weeks before the IPO:

http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2012/05/facebook-admits-to-mobile-weakness/#axzz1viB00j8h
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-07/tech/31602869_1_zynga-facebook-linkedin

This information was freely available to anyone who was paying attention. They're trying to blame Facebook for their own failure to do even basic due dilligence.

Few people realize this, but Android phones don't keep time correctly. They use GPS satellites for timekeeping, which was last updated in 1982, and since then there have been 15 leap seconds added. As a result, nearly all Android devices are 15 seconds too fast. Note that iOS compensates for this and shows the correct time.

There is real reason to sue. Partway through the roadshow a facebook exec (an insider) told analysts to dial back earnings growth estimates (provided insider information). This last-minute insider information was made available to institutional buyers of the IPO, but not to the retail buyers. The institutional buyers coalesced around a buy price of 32 dollars, while the retail buyers came in at 40 dollars. Now, post IPO facebook has stopped falling, hovering at, you guessed it, very near 32. The retail investors got screwed, likely illegally.

details here

Thank you for trying to educate me. You are still totally wrong, but I do appreciate being tipped to the subtlety of the story. Having dug into it, the best I can determine is that the GE tax is "small" -- that's the last word from GE, having realized how bad an idea it was for them to announce that they paid billions less than zero. Since GE refuses to be more specific, I think it is fair to assume that "small" is within rounding distance of zero. Since I paid more than zero, I stand by my assertion that I paid more than GE, but if you want me to be 100% literal about it, then I didn't pay more than GE by billions of dollars.

Forbes says billions in tax benefits in 2009
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html

Business Insider say GE is "full of crap"
http://www.businessinsider.com/ge-taxes-2010

CNN Money reports $0 in taxes
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/

Washington Post, deep down on the second page, reports a "small" tax liability, but GE won't specify; note that "zero" is the smallest number of all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/2011/04/05/AFZm0L9C_story_1.html

but at some point the people have gotta turn it around if they don't want to end up completely like North Korea.

Turn what around?

Marketshare is only nice if you can convert that into profits.

From this article:

Over its lifetime, the business segment containing the Xbox is down more than $5.5 billion -- not including the cost of acquisitions such as the 2002 purchase game developer Rare, which cost more than $300 million.

That was written a year ago. They've had profitable quarters since then so they may be coming close to the break-even point.

Microsoft makes almost all of its money in Windows and Office licenses (which are still very good businesses). Everything else is just a hobby.

I think it's a mistake to judge Ballmer's suitability as CEO going forward by what he was able to do in the last era. What are the trends looking like right now if you are Microsoft? They are incredibly nervous about Windows 8 / RT. They are disappointed with WP7. Bing is for sale. Their IIS business is moribund. XBox is dominating a shrinking (or at best, stagnant) market segment. They've alienated developers by dropping major technologies and products in their prime.

Worst of all, nobody is excited about Microsoft or Windows anymore.

MSFT profits came from 100% Windows & Office

And what is that figure today? 95%? I would lump "Server and Tools" in with Windows, but even if you account for it separately, MS still generates more than 90% of its profit from Windows and Office. That is why investors are restless - after many years and $ billions spent, Online Services are still in the red, and Entertainment & Devices is barely profitable. Microsoft has shown to be thoroughly incapable of diversification - the vast bulk of profit still comes from exactly the same sources as a decade ago, and the success or failure of these sources dominates overall profits: Microsoft profits jump 31% on strong Office sales Microsoft profits stagnate as Windows sales fall. With increasing use of mobile devices, and online competition (Google Apps for Business), the Windows+Office monopoly is looking shakier than ever before.

Well you don't buy 450m rounds of ammo for one government organization, with an indefinite quantity order either. Nor have open contracts on .223, and 5.56mm either. Personally I can understand where some people might think that's possible, considering that it oddly echo's the Reichstag event in Germany, and exactly how it went down.

Personally, I can understand that you're an idiot and I am dumber for having read your post.

The "Reichstag Event" (actually, the Reichstag Fire) was a fire. An act of arson which burned a famous government building. It was most likely set by the Nazis themselves, and they used it as an excuse to seize more power. (Because, you see, only the Nazis could protect Germany from the supposed evil outside agents whom they claimed set the fire.)

The Reichstag Fire was not an ammunition order placed by a government agency. It was not related to weapons at all. Repeat that to yourself until you get why your claimed "echo's" (SIC) of the Reichstag Fire make you sound like either a crazy man or someone who is woefully ignorant of the history he's trying to use to paint the Obama Administration as a bunch of Nazis.

Speaking of which, all we've been hearing from you rightwing wingnuts ever since Obama got elected is shrill screeching about how Obama and his administration are illegitimate un-American outsiders who want to corrupt and destroy America. That's exactly the same kind of ultra-nationalistic, fact-free reasoning the Nazis used as an excuse to suppress other political parties and persecute Jews. The Reichstag Fire was an example of it in action. Either you're too poorly educated about history to realize that you're the modern group which is partially recapitulating the Nazi mindset, or you don't care.

Well you don't buy 450m rounds of ammo for one government organization, with an indefinite quantity order either. Nor have open contracts on .223, and 5.56mm either. Personally I can understand where some people might think that's possible, considering that it oddly echo's the Reichstag event in Germany, and exactly how it went down.

CEO Jim Buckmaster, who is about to celebrate his 11th year in charge, told the Guardian,"any extra profit accrued is an unintended secondary consequence." The 11th most popular site in the United States and the 37th in the world has only 32 employees. It charges for job advertisements in 18 U.S. cities and $10 for apartment listings in New York as a way to meet expenses. AIM estimated the site's value at $1 billion, citing "untapped" commercial potential.

They would not have $1BN of untapped potential (i.e. unused ad real estate on their website) if their true motive were some version of "maximize shareholder value."

...To grab the interest of investors/suckers, you need to come up with something grandiose like building a whole city with no people in it.

The Chinese have already tried that.

Conservatives are evil. Don't be one.

http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/05/greg-abbott-wins-appeal-tx-ban-on.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110614035520AApWGtA

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-13/news/31054067_1_professors-obscenity-first-bill

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/43388331#43388331

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michelle-bachmann-signs-social-conservative-pro-marriage-pledge-that-also-bans-porn/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/05/07/conservatives-back-ban-on-begging/

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/11/wyomings_self-described_conser.html

http://stfuconservatives.net/post/19427221927

This is a very reasonable point you make. If you read the article I linked, there is a graph specifically detailing digital single sales revenue which doesn't really factor until 2003 when the decline was already in effect for about four years. In reality it's probably partly the availability of songs a-la-carte and partly piracy. The financial reversal, whatever the cause may be, is striking. [q.v. Michael DeGusta's adjusted graph]

It may well be overblown. I believe the industry will recover. Legal alternatives to piracy like iTunes look extremely promising. Still, I find the lets-do-away-with-copyright rhetoric pretty simplistic and those who espouse it seem to have no inkling of music industry economics (at least historically speaking). I find the self-styled copyright revolutionaries who feel entitled to free content to be especially grating. And, like everyone else, I find the suits and fat cats at RIAA and MPAA to be delusional, short-sighted, and in many cases downright evil (David Geffen is a good example).

This is a very reasonable point you make. If you read the article I linked, there is a graph specifically detailing digital single sales revenue which doesn't really factor until 2003 when the decline was already in effect for about four years. In reality it's probably partly the availability of songs a-la-carte and partly piracy. The financial reversal, whatever the cause may be, is striking. [q.v. Michael DeGusta's adjusted graph]

It may well be overblown. I believe the industry will recover. Legal alternatives to piracy like iTunes look extremely promising. Still, I find the lets-do-away-with-copyright rhetoric pretty simplistic and those who espouse it seem to have no inkling of music industry economics (at least historically speaking). I find the self-styled copyright revolutionaries who feel entitled to free content to be especially grating. And, like everyone else, I find the suits and fat cats at RIAA and MPAA to be delusional, short-sighted, and in many cases downright evil (David Geffen is a good example).

I have pretty liberal attitudes toward music copying, but believe it's pretty telling that music industry revenues peaked in 1999 and plummeted for years. In fact, music industry revenues are down over 60% from where they were 13 years ago. In any other industry a 65% decline would be seen as a complete catastrophe. Maybe that's not a huge problem for you, but it certainly is for people who worked in the music industry.

Have you considered the possibility that the business of music distribution has changed drastically? In 1999, the primary form of music distribution was still CDs, 12-15 songs, take it or leave it. Is it possible that people were only listening to a fraction of the CD and that most CD purchases were made in order to obtain a single song that was quite popular with the bonus of some other songs that you may or may not also enjoy? Now, the consumer has the freedom to purchase only the songs that they want, leading to a drop from ~$13/sale to ~$1/sale. Add into that the fact that the music industry did everything in their power to resist digital distribution, giving Apple the first large bite at the apple (pun not originally intended). So now, the consumer may pay for only those songs that they feel are worth their money and they must also give some of the profits to Apple.

This is not to say that piracy hasn't played a role in the music industry's decline. But I would argue that the financial losses due to piracy have been largely over-hyped.

Consolidation of open-source software business model?

I'm pretty sure revenue sharing is the big reason why carriers use Google Android as opposed to some other OS, including Community Android.

This is an attitude that puzzles me. The game companies are the ones making these decisions. If anything, the blame mostly lies on them. They're the ones who implement the DRM and make the software, not the pirates. The pirates may indirectly cause them to change direction, but they still make the final decision.

Do not pretend as if no blame rests on the developers.

I suggest you consider dropping a bit of your own arrogance. Obviously a developer will always want to earn more and a customer will always want to pay less. DRM, as irritating as it is sometimes, can be born of an honest motivation: to limit game use to the person who purchased it. To say there is no excuse for the 'punishment' of 'draconian' DRM is a pretty nice bit of rhetoric but ignores entirely the fact that some DRM goes unnoticed by most (e.g., streaming a movie from netflix) and that unauthorized copying and distribution of games has a critical relation to the profitability of game development and this, in turn, has a critical relation to the desire of developers to make games. You may love your single-player, non-networked games a great deal, but if the prevailing business climate makes these games unattractive projects for developers, you won't have much to choose from.

As for your other post, I think you get a few things wrong:

I cannot fathom how anyone could perceive that as being a much more severe problem than jaywalking. They may or may not be losing potential profit, but that is all.

You don't seem to realize that game development, music, tv, and movies are considered high-risk/high reward investements. In some cases, it's not "potential profit" that is at stake but the very business itself. For every blockbuster game/movie/song/show out there, hundreds go belly up.

I cannot see how copying music is a "huge" problem even as someone who supports copyright.

I have pretty liberal attitudes toward music copying, but believe it's pretty telling that music industry revenues peaked in 1999 and plummeted for years. In fact, music industry revenues are down over 60% from where they were 13 years ago. In any other industry a 65% decline would be seen as a complete catastrophe. Maybe that's not a huge problem for you, but it certainly is for people who worked in the music industry.

Laughable. What do you suggest? Even as someone who supports the idea of reasonable copyright laws, I do not believe it is possible to stop.

Actually, it was legislation (the DMCA) that set the stage for the current legal situation vis-a-vis content sharing. In particular, the safe habor provision of that legislation is what protects companies like Google and the Pirate Bay and Megaupload from enormous civil actions by the MPAA and the RIAA -- that is why they have resorted to suing individuals instead. The DMCA says that these internet companies are not liable for the actions of their users and that has resulted in the proliferation of services that people can use to share copyrighted material freely. A reversal of this provision would immediately result in some colossal lawsuits.

I heartily agree with you that a legal alternative to downloading is the only way forward here. The suits in the motion picture business are screwing this up big time.

While I'll admit that iphone knockoffs have sometimes seemed to be better than the original, I have no idea how I'd go about checking if I'm actually going to get something that actually turns on, let alone has half the capabilities of an ipad.

There's nothing wrong with monopolies as long as it doesn't affect consumers. Google can have a 100% search market share and it won't matter as long as I can simply go to www.bing.com. It won't matter if IE ships with Bing as the default browser. It won't matter unless Google somehow magically forces itself down my throat.

You cite Android as an example of abusing dominance to bundle products? Funny because the way I see it:
The LG Spectrum comes with Bing as default search
Motorola's Citrus does too

That's not to mention that Windows phones and the Blackberries that come with Bing. A quick tip about competition law, to abuse your monopoly you need to have a monopoly in the area. Google does NOT have a monopoly in the mobile market so they can bundle whatever the hell they want with their Android phones. Also Google does not retain full control over Android and it is entirely up to the manufacturer / carrier to bundle what they wish to on the phones. There's one key exception and that is phones which say "Powered by Google" on the back of them, which is by a long shot not all of the Android phones currently on the market.

Why Apple has no 4G iPhone.

Taxes have rarely been lower in the past century, see this

Oh and this...

Venture capitalists fund startups that leverage Facebook data to disrupt their incumbents. Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya left the company to start a venture capital firm with a single mission: fund companies that will use Facebook's open APIs to take over large, calcified industries like banking, education, and healthcare. Palihapitiya is funding a banking startup, for example, that will give potential customers a credit score based on their Facebook activity. Potential: Unknown. The idea is that Facebook will profit from companies using its data to disrupt incumbants the way it figured out how to profit from Facebook gamesmaker Zynga's disruption of the videogame industry.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-lousy-ad-business-is-making-its-ipo-is-looking-hairier-by-the-minute--heres-why-it-doesnt-matter-2012-5#ixzz1tkNTU9mH

Scary.

Bubble goes pop.

Facebook's ad business isn't very (or so some claim) because of the way they target ads (like TV ads) so expect a lot fo change (again) in Facebook's policies.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/02/businessinsiderfacebooks-lousy-ad-b.DTL

Your Facebook ID becomes the way you pay for everything online and offline. Long-term, one of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's goals seems to be for your Facebook ID to be your ID everywhere. Given smartphone adoption, you can imagine this happening online and off. If that were to happen, the easiest way for Facebook to make money would be to facilitate offline and online transactions. Potential: PayPal, part of eBay, has an enterprise value close to $20 billion or so. Visa has a market cap of $100 billion.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-lousy-ad-business-is-making-its-ipo-is-looking-hairier-by-the-minute--heres-why-it-doesnt-matter-2012-5#ixzz1tkK42pqr

How you could ever trust the government with such powers is beyond me.

I by nature of government have to entrust government to forcibly move people and put them in captivity. I by the nature of government have to entrust them to kill people and expose Americans to life threatening situation. I by the nature of government have to make them responsible for the safety of our public infrastructure. The power and responsibility for enforcing copyright doesn't even compare. What's the worst that happens, I have to buy stuff I want 3x to use it where I want?

Rather than saying correlation is causation, prove that shutting down a few websites occasionally is responsible for most people not resorting to piracy.

I can't give you firm proof. We don't get to run controlled experiments where we have 2 or 3 or 4 histories with various laws and then move society forwards seeing what the effects are. Instead we have to guess based on similar situations, modeling and analogies. That's the way all laws are argued for.

I don't know what kind of garbage DRM is in ebooks or movies, but music? I heard plenty of music is 100% DRM free. I guess the industry is dead, huh?

No it is severely wounded.
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d5c3e1e4bd7c86216030000/chart-of-the-day-music-industry-1973-2009-feb-2011.jpg

We are down to about a $6b market which is about 2/3rds or more smaller than it likely would have been without digital copying. The effect on mass music and culture has been tremendous.

It seems to me that you're one of those people who would support the TSA or the Patriot Act because they claim to protect us from all the big, evil terrorists.

Those are fair analogies. I don't support everything in the airline security act or the Patriot act because I don't think they are necessary. OTOH I don't question that both are the government doing their job even if I disagree with the particulars.

    They all pay their taxes honestly. The problem is, they're exploiting holes in tax law to minimize their tax burden. Everyone does this. Even your average Joe citizen. They file their taxes with as many exemptions as possible, to minimize what they have to pay.

    The larger the company, the more ways they have to get around it. Look at GE.

    I'm sure most of us have heard of tax shelters, offshore accounts, blah, blah, blah.. There are a plethora of ways to hide income, or minimize its impact on you.

    I, JWSmythe, could open JWSmythe Consulting in any of a number of countries. Payments to "me" could go to these offshore companies with no tax burden in the US. When tax time comes around, *I*, the citizen of the US, never earned a penny here. I did enjoy the comforts of an off shore company paying my mortgage, utilities, and whatever other expenses I had.

    It doesn't work quite that smoothly. Making no money can raise red flags. So I would be paid a low salary, but I still wouldn't need to worry about pesky things like bills.

    For the record, I do not operate this way. It's usually people and companies that make at least $500k/yr that benefit from it. For what I make, it it would cost me more to set up the offshore company than I pay in taxes. I report everything honestly. I pay my taxes appropriate for where I actually live. If I were to cheat the system in any sort of way, I'd get treated like a criminal, and suffer from tax liens, payroll deduction, and bank account seizures. Us citizens have to worry about such things. Big companies rarely do. At worst, they can negotiate their way around such problems.

    In the case of the Apple and Microsoft stories, they used domestic tax havens to avoid paying state taxes. I'm sure they also used quite a few international ones for various dealings. Many companies also frequently get tax incentives for operating in a particular city. I've seen many companies come and go, where a local government will offer them a period of no taxes, or even negative taxes (us taxpayers pay them). When the term of that agreement expires, and the local government expects to start getting a return on their investment, the company moves that office to somewhere else willing to make a sweet offer. It's good for the company. It's not so good for the people who were working in that location, when they find that their job has been moved or downsized.

    IMHO, no company should get special treatment. Taxes work because everyone pays equally. In reality, the lower classes cover the tax burden, while the large corporations enjoy benefits.

    I didn't read too far into the MS and Apple situation. It seems there is a royalty tax, which may have been imposed by the state as an attempt to profit from a small high income segment of the state's industry. That's speculation though, I didn't research that at all.

This discussion has been contaminated by reputation management experts.

Treat any posting here with contempt and ridicule, even those appearing sincere. They are all participating in the gaming and consequent destruction of tech discussion sites.

Do not contribute to these poisoned topics.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/facebook-enlists-pr-firm-burson-marsteller-to-pitch-google-privacy-story.html
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-12/tech/30002042_1_burson-marsteller-burson-marsteller-facebook

They're not the only one. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-20/tech/30301299_1_microsoft-cash-home-tax-issue

Microsoft has at least 12 different billion dollar businesses. Take away Windows and Office, and sure, it would kill their revenue. They would probably have to fire a lot of people, but after some restructuring they would still be in a position to make a ton of money.

They're still trying to earn their dirt money.

This discussion is contaminated. Treat all commenters here with contempt for being involved with such sleazy sly tactics.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/facebook-enlists-pr-firm-burson-marsteller-to-pitch-google-privacy-story.html
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-12/tech/30002042_1_burson-marsteller-burson-marsteller-facebook

Bing's only a Two billion dollar a year money pit. But at least that investment's making a dent on Google, right? Um, no. Wow. That is an amazing. What qualifications do you have to have to run a business like that? I think I could do that.

You are correct, that's exactly what RIM did:

"A venture capitalist quoted in the online PDF [says] that RIM 'dramatically misjudged' how important the user experience would turn out to be."

They thought "users wanted great battery life, great security, great mail handling, minimal network use, and a great keyboard experience." It turns out, a great user experience beats all those things.

Motorola sued Apple first. They sued before Apple started suing Android manufacturers. I'm not defending Apple or Microsoft or attacking Motorola, it's just that Apple did not start the smartphone patent wars.

Kodak sued Apple in January 2010. Then Apple and HTC sued each other (Apple first) around April 2010. Things started escalating. Motorola sued Apple Oct. 8, 2010 and then Apple countersued a few weeks later. Check out this link for an infographic of the suits (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399098,00.asp).
Also, this article for the Motorola v. Apple suit: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-10-06/tech/29972735_1_motorola-patents-motorola-mobility-patent-infringement.

If anyone started the wars, it was Kodak. Apple has played their part in escalating the war but as far as Apple and Motorola are concerned, Motorola started that particular battle.

Since Apple didn't care about Path doing it

Apple didn't care?

http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-dragged-paths-dave-morin-into-his-office-and-chewed-him-out-2012-3

Doubt this will survive at my default +2 for very long...

The Christian point of view is that the breakdown of the family has led to the breakdown of society, and the mistrust, cynicism, and cheating that we see. The Catholic view, in particular, is that the breakdown of the family has come from no-fault divorce and especially contraception. As even a secular business journal has admitted, Pope Paul VI's 1968 predictions in Humanae Vitae were spot on, regarding contraception leading to immorality.

By separating procreation and pleasure in sex, the pill has enabled "free love", which at minimum leads to emotional hurt, which leads to cynicism, mistrust, and the propensity to hurt others.

Well, let's see — not only is Iran Times is not state-owned, it is published in the US. It is also just repeating a Washington Post story. Further, the fact that the US is continuing to fly drone missions over Iran unabated runs counter to the Iranian government's narrative that they have the capability to "take down" a US drone in the first place.

Is FOX News a better source?

How about:

Stars and Stripes
Business Insider

HTC:

http://www.businessinsider.com/htcs-shares-tumble-cfo-change-samsung-launch-weigh-2012-4

Motorola
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-motorolamobility-idUSTRE80P23W20120126

LG:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/lg-electronics-profit-falls-33-after-company-falls-behind-in-smartphones.html

and

Sony:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/sony-ericsson-posts-surprise-loss-in-its-final-quarter/67399

The only mobile company making real money from Android is Samsung.

Really? They are plenty critical of Microsoft.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gartner-windows-8-tablets-will-be-an-utter-failure-2012-4

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9076698/Windows_is_collapsing_Gartner_analysts_warn

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9862322-56.html

Stop with the stupid lame bias, which is proving the article's point, really.

Better drainage on highways. Higher speeds make pothole cost on highways higher to users. It also easier and quick to resurface 10 miles of highway than 10 miles of city streets. We don't have the money to maintain our infrastructure.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-07/news/30253498_1_ponzi-scheme-infrastructure-liability

Better drainage on highways. Higher speeds make pothole cost on highways higher to users. It also easier and quick to resurface 10 miles of highway than 10 miles of city streets. We don't have the money to maintain our infrastructure.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-07/news/30253498_1_ponzi-scheme-infrastructure-liability

Apple nearly went bankrupt.

As someone on the right, I am forced to admit that often Fox/WND/TheBlaze carry important stories that the rest of our media seem to ignore or bury on the digital equivalent of the last pages of a newspaper.

However, I can't stand their dramatic, self-victimizing, emotional style.

Yet over the past few years I've realized this isn't unique to these news sources. MSNBC, USA Today, CNN and even NPR use these same tactics; they're just better at covering it up.

And when NBC got caught editing the Trayvon Martin 911 call to make Zimmerman seem like a Klansman, instead of some guy answering a direct question from the 911 operator, I think I finally got it: Fox isn't the exception. It's the rule. There are no exceptions.

Once you have government, and law, and an economy, most people do not want to earn their living by risking being shot at.

And yet the US military employs about 3 million soldiers.

When I think of US, I don't know why, it is not the economy but the debt that pops into my mind. Granted, there are some signs of improvement and, GDP percentage-wise, others are much worse.

IE wasn't really beaten with standards-supporting strategy, it was beaten with heavy marketing.

During Firefox days this was mostly done by fanboys. I'm sure you have seen those fanboys shouting out how great browser Firefox is (was) and even going out on their way to install it on all computers at their schools and other places, usually without permission. The most nerdy ones in my class did it too, and the whole internet was heavily spammed with "get firefox" shit back in 2005 or so.

Now during Chrome days, the marketing is handled by Google on their search engine, YouTube, ads on television and even billboards and newspapers, and by paying computer manufacturers and software authors to bundle it with their products. As most people are clueless this has greatly increased Chromes market share.

IE9 is also actually a really good browser. And, One of the largest research centers on Earth is Microsoft Research, and in my honest opinion they deserve some credit for that. No other company on the planet spends billions on R&D.

This lines well with Bill Gates support for helping the humankind. Did you know that Bill Gates has actually spend more on curing the world than U.S. spends on foreign aid? Since 2007 he has given out $28 BILLION for saving lives and improving actually necessary things.

Even if you hate Microsoft and Bill Gates, you cannot ignore the fact that for once there's a billionaire who has actually used his cash reserves for great good. Compare this to the Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin who use their shady money got from selling your private information for buying 193-foot long yachts and marrying models (Lucinda Southworth), similar to what MPAA/RIAA/record label executives do.

Just so I'm clear. Are you saying that the mid to late 90s IT technology boom would have happened regardless of Microsoft and within that time frame (if not earlier)? I'm not so convinced. Just look at the historical sales chart below in the following URL.

http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329

Also, the Atari ST, Amiga, C64, TRS-80 all started to take a massive nose-dive ranging from the mid-80s to early-90s period. The PC clone platform dominated by Microsoft kept on growing market share however. Just look at the parabola in growth. Simply unmatched in the industry!

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4f1784c6ecad048c37000007-614-835/chart.jpg

Sir, you are well named.

My South African friend was sure a particularly evil politician would stay in power in an election we were looking at. He was voted out in a landslide partly because of informed voters. (UN control of voting booths helped a lot too.)

African farmers are increasingly able to make use of modern farming methods. This too is due to the information age. B2B sales of farming equipment and open markets, global competition, and training via the internet have all played their part.

Technology failed to help in the past because it was being wielded by imperialists with agendas. Things in Africa are getting better and will keep getting better.

I know plenty who do less than 40, but I wouldn't exactly consider them the most productive members of society >40 is usually closer to 0 than 40 with most of these people.

You are right about government meddling having a lot to do with that. The administrative cost of an employee to a business owner beyond what an employee immediately sees in many businesses is due to regulations and requirements that prevents companies from hiring more people. In turn they simply demand more of the people they do have. This is part of the reason staffing firms are so popular, they put the burden of the employment paperwork and benefits on someone else and remove much of the legal liability that can be associated with firing someone. They simply tell the staffing firm they don't need this person anymore and the staffing firm is free to lay someone off with the justification their position is gone, even if they're replacing that person with someone else.

Our national debt is established with a "people are the government property" mindset. The US people are the collateral against the loans our debt is financed by. Quite literally our butts belong to China (and other countries) if we default. So glad my butts being sold to other countries to pay for tattoo removal in California.

"...its just that compared to all other options, the government is the best option"

You might want to rethink this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-better-life-index-2011-5#1-australia-11
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries_slide_11.html
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45ejmi/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2/#content

The US is the third largest producer of oil after Russia and Saudi Arabia.

This year. Citigroup analysis are predicting that before 2015, US oil production will surpass that of Russia and Saudi Arabia, and that between efficiency increases and new production, that global oil prices will drop around 15% by 2020.

The Chinese people are not slaves or animals.

OK. Go tell this guy.