Slashdot Mirror

Just don't burn the cheap ones. Turns out, they use some weird chemicals that kill you to make flags these days.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/09/16/pakistani-protester-burns-american-flag-and-dies-from-smoke/

> I've been added to several,er, 'fairly extreme view' groups without my confirmation/consent.

Mark Zuckerberg was added to NAMBLA without his consent. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/10/07/mark-zuckerberg-joins-the-north-american-man-boy-love-association-and-other-adventures-in-facebook-groups/

> Though some have questioned Calacanis's story, Facebook's own FAQ
> confirms that anyone can be added to a group without his or her consent:
> "Can I prevent people from adding me to a new group?" is answered by
> "The functionality of approving a group membership is not available."

It's one thing to join a private gay web forum, but with "Facebook" and "private" do not belong in the same sentence. I'm retired, so my right-of-centre views (Canadian "right wing" === USA "mushy middle") won't be able to hurt any potential career. But for anybody who needs a job to pay bills and put food on the table, Facebook is a timebomb waiting to go off.

The question is: Can you trust the source?

It keeps the iPhone mostly free of viruses or crash prone apps

FYI, apps on iOS are more crash prone than Android apps.

It's a headline in the form of a question - so no, they aren't.

It keeps the iPhone mostly free of viruses or crash prone apps

FYI, apps on iOS are more crash prone than Android apps.

Romney doesn't call for NPR, actually PBS, to be eliminated,

He is calling for public subsidies to public broadcasting to be eliminating. This includes both PBS and NPR.

...he thinks there is no reason for the Federal government to supply it with 12% of its budget.

...And he's wrong. There is an excellent reason for the Federal government to supply them with money. These stations are non-profits specifically dedicated to public education. I get so sick of this attitude that it's not government's job to promote the general welfare of this country. Go re-read the Constitution sometime, it's in the first sentence.

Public radio and public television have done more to educate pre-schoolers than any other education program. Here's a list of bullet points that I ran across recently:

• PBS is the number one source of media content for pre-school teachers.
• The American public has named PBS the most trusted public institution for nine consecutive years.
• Children who watched Sesame Street in pre-school spend more time reading for fun in high school and obtain higher grades in English, math, and science.
• Kids who played the Martha Speaks app for two weeks had a 31% gain in vocabulary tested.
• Last year, PBS offered more than 500 hours of arts and cultural programming watched by more than 121 million people.
• While the federal appropriation equals about 15% of the system's revenue, that's an aggregate number. For many PBS stations, including those that serve people who may need it most, this counts for as much as 50%.

...And there were a few other bullet points, but you get the idea. Whether you're on the left or the right of center, almost everyone agrees that PBS and NPR are worthwhile.

But if you cut the federal subsidy, the end result is that a lot of the smaller stations serving poorer areas that can't raise as much money as those in more prosperous areas will go under. Of course, that seems to be the MO of Republicans these days--we want all of our benefits, and to hell with the poor people.

If the Federal government no longer provides PBS with 12% of its budget, what happens? It either finds someone else to replace that money, or it continues to operate at 88% of current funding.

As I said above, a lot of stations in poorer areas will go under. You seem to be under the impression that anyone who wants to can just cut their budget by 12%. If you're decently well-off, you probably can, but this is why people like me get so frustrated. You have no idea what it's like when people tell you, "Just cut 12%!" when you're barely scraping by.

So, your post is not only wrong, but grossly misleading. That is pretty much the picture for the rest of your post - false or misleading, at best. I don't know who finds that "informative", but you obviously duped someone.

No, the only thing that's misleading is your attempt to justify Romney's brilliant plan to solve our budget problems by eliminating the government subsidy to PBS and NPR. It will most definitely kill its availability in a lot of areas, especially more rural communities and poor communities, the very places where it's needed most.

You've also effectively proved yet again why people like me get so frustrated at Republicans. Look, I understand we have a large deficit. I'm not oblivious to the fact that we're overspending in this country. But why is Romney picking on public broadcasting? I've heard the rationale that, well, you have to go after everything--everyone has to tighten their belts. But it's just awful convenient that to Republicans, everyone having to tighten their belts means that poor and middle class people, p

You should listen to Romney speak, he kind of gives it away:

- Eliminate NPR

I've selected just one of your bullets because it nicely captures overall flavor of your post, and the general level of accuracy.

Romney doesn't call for NPR, actually PBS, to be eliminated, he thinks there is no reason for the Federal government to supply it with 12% of its budget. If the Federal government no longer provides PBS with 12% of its budget, what happens? It either finds someone else to replace that money, or it continues to operate at 88% of current funding. So, your post is not only wrong, but grossly misleading. That is pretty much the picture for the rest of your post - false or misleading, at best. I don't know who finds that "informative", but you obviously duped someone.

Nope. Working as a corporate raider for Bain Capital was sufficient.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/bain-capital-mitt-romney-outsourcing-china-global-tech

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/12/how-mitt-romney-invested-millions-in-outsourcing/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html

For a while they were losing money hand over fist ... until around 2009Q4

http://www.forbes.com/global/2005/1003/036A_4.html
The Xbox game console is hot, but its division has lost $4 billion in four years and isn't yet in the black.

Although it looks like they are back to losing money again ...
http://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-s-xbox-division-loses-229-million-226215.phtml

Their Annual Report is not the place to look ...
http://www.microsoft.com/investor/AnnualReports/default.aspx ... instead you will want the Quarterly Reports. You can find the XBox losses in "Microsoft Entertainment Division" and/or "Entertainment & Devices Division"
http://www.microsoft.com/investor/SEC/default.aspx

If you look at the investment career of the plutocratic candidate Romney you can see how far this transformation has already gone. A lot of his $250 Billion (or more) was acquired (i.e. stolen) from Bane investors. The deals were always structured so that Bain insiders would come out ahead, no matter what the outcome: win, loose or draw.

What is called capitalism in the West is close to the way the Mafia used to work after WWII. You joint a crew associated with an insider and you get a license to steal. You pay for the privilege of stealing by kicking money to the bosses. In the current setup the insiders support outfits like the American Enterprise Institute and the Chamber of Commerce which influence government to legalize theft.

A current example: Wallmart is in huge scandal right now with bribery in Mexico.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/04/26/walmarts-mexican-bribery-scandal-will-sink-it-like-the-icerberg-sank-the-titanic/

It came to light that after paying the bribes WalMart’s leadership team did about everything it could to cover them up. Including spending millions on lobbying efforts to hopefully change the laws before anyone was caught, and possibly prosecuted. The goal was to keep the stores open, and open more. If that meant a little bribing went on, then it was best to not let people know. And instead of saying what WalMart did was wrong, change the rules so it doesn’t look like it was wrong.

The US Chamber of Commerce was the vehicle for their attempt to change the law to make bribery legal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wal-mart-took-part-in-lobbying-campaign-to-amend-anti-bribery-law/2012/04/24/gIQAyZcdfT_story.html

The push to revisit how federal authorities enforce the statute has been centered at a little-known but well-funded arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where a top executive of Wal-Mart has sat on the board of directors for nearly a decade.

The effort has intensified in the past two years, drawing on the backing of several large companies and trade groups such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, where one of Wal-Mart’s top executives serves as a director. It also has involved high-powered lobbyists, including former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey.

There is no evidence that suggests Wal-Mart participated in the Chamber’s efforts because of its problems in Mexico. (Emphasis added.)

If you believe that last line you also should believe in the tooth fairy.

You might not like Apple's products (and neither do I), but that doesn't mean that we're not in the post-PC era. Just look at the numbers. Apple's iPhone/iPad revenue dwarfs their Mac revenue. In fact, the iPhone brings in more revenue to Apple than the entirety of what Microsoft sells.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/19/apples-iphone-is-now-worth-more-than-all-of-microsoft/

Yes, part of that is due to high profit margins. But it's also due to the fact that a significant amount of computing is now done on iDevices and their clones, including Android devices. This is exactly what Jobs was predicting with his idea of the post-PC era, and he was right.

The concept of a post-PC era is a useful one, and Apple demonstrated its usefulness by making tens of billions of dollars from the idea. But so what if there is always going to be a non-zero number of traditional PCs? It's a pointless argument and doesn't have any useful implications.

Some A/C already mentioned that the A in M&A is acquisition, which is what we're talking about here.

That being said I have my own article for you: 50% of All M&A Deals Fail

Pay special attention to the part talking about different corporate cultures as Nokia and Apple are nothing a-like in that respect; moreover culture is a huge component of whether M&A's are successful.

And let's not forget the fact that Apple and Nokia are fundamentally in different businesses. Yes they both sell smart phones, but Nokia always tried to be the mass-market player whereas Apple has always been in the luxury goods market. Two completely different strategies, a lot like mixing water and oil...

Don't base your opposition to GMO on that study:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/
http://www.geekosystem.com/no-corn-data-for-esfa/
...and many, many more.

a 3D printer doesn't just do the electronics. and it doesn't assemble multiple components into one.

There are already single printers that do multiple colors and a small variety of similar materials (up to 14 different materials in one run.)
http://www.techhive.com/article/256691/this_3d_printer_can_use_up_to_14_materials_makes_3d_printing_more_awesome.html

And there are singular printers that (each) do different materials (stainless steel, ceramic, rubber, ABS, glass, sandstone, even chocolate!)

It won't be long until there is no 'assembly' phase. The object is just printed out complete. Airbus is already looking into this: "Airbus Explores Building Planes With Giant 3D Printers"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/07/11/airbus-explores-a-future-where-planes-are-built-with-giant-3d-printers/

It's Already Passed.

In the Philippines.

Who cares right? Remember ACTA?

Cybercrime Prevention Act
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/10/02/the-philippines-passes-the-cybercrime-prevention-act-that-makes-sopa-look-reasonable/

ACTA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Now all Obama has to do is sign a treaty extends their laws here too. Wait... That's already happened too...

There has to be one hell of a fight in gov't circles to keep our freedom ( that's left ) or there's going to have to be one hell of a fight with other means.

- Dan.

Meg just announced the turn-around will take until "2016", so Meg plans to stick around for a few years, and if nothing else, this will be good for Meg and her purse.

She's a billionaire, and is the 913th richest person on the planet. I don't think she's in it for money. It's probably more of a hobby. Maybe that's a good thing?

France is a nation of losers. (The minority of individuals who don't deserve to be a part of this harsh aggregate abstraction should relocate ASAP.)

Once the dominant nation of Europe, seemingly destined to be the leading culture of the world, France had squandered that potential, which went to The English-Speaking Peoples instead. Today, the English language has 15 TIMES more content on the Internet than Frence! France's only noteworthy university ranks below 33 universities in the English-speaking world, which completely dominates the ranking!

The native French are too lazy to work, and too lazy to have children (though most other European countries are even worse when it comes to the latter). Immigrants are making up some of the difference, but at this rate France will not remain France for long... They are coasting on the momentum of the past, like tourism and export of overpriced low-tech items like perfumes because of their lingering irrational prestige. EU subsidies benefit them tremendously.

In the last few decades, France has already been leapfrogged by upstart or more-WW2-demolished nations like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. It will soon be surpassed by other less socialist nations like New Zealand, Estonia, Chile, and Panama. (And that's going by a benchmark that is biased toward socialism, because it counts government thug spending as being equally valuable as voluntary spending.) We will see an ever-increasing exodus of brains and capital out of France, until finally they will run out of competent people to exploit.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could deport all U.S. Democrats and Greens to France to let them directly suffer the consequences of their failed ideas...

--libman

Part of the reason for the slow failure of the project is the suicide of one of the co-founders, Ilya. A death has a lasting effect on any project, particularly a small one by people new to the whole thing.

I'll leave you with this one. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/10/02/android-could-soon-overtake-apple-in-tablet-market/ No wonder apple defenders get so crazed here, I think the future is scary for them.

Apple is definitely not the most powerful company ever. Not disagreeing that some of their tactics (legal, technological, and ecosystem-lockin) are "evil", but their enormous size and profit is currently coming from enormous margins on incredibly popular consumer goods.

Profits != Power, per se. Exxon-Mobile, for example, is deeply involved in government policy, and they (and other oil companies) have enormous sway on environmental policy, military and foreign policy, and incredibly sway in many nations where they have oil production operations.

Meanwhile, arguably Microsoft is more powerful as well; despite their much lower market cap they are deeply entrenched in big areas, including servers (where they are basically the big alternative to Linux), they are a dominant force in the traditional gaming market (b/n XBox and their influence on PC gaming), and they're making interesting inroads in new areas like virtualization/cloud services. They've even managed to make some headway with Bing, rising to the #2 search engine spot. (Where Google still dominates; Google won the Bing challenge 5-0 when I took it.)

Apple is a very unique company though, and they do have certain "powers" that nearly no other company - at least US company - has, but most of them are hard to use for evil. For example, they're possibly the only company left in the US capable of doing the full-platform hardware/software design that they do. The Dells of the world have outsourced too much of their design to their supply chain and it makes them apparently unable to break new ground. If anything, I think the most likely company to rise up and produce their own hardware is actually likely to be Google, since they're actually willing to do engineering work that isn't purely in pursuit of a hardware profit.

FWIW, any honest comparison of Apple products on a price basis can't really conclude they are "incredibly overpriced". Apple has extreme control over their suppliers - Foxconn operates on a very thin margin, so much so that Apple basically had to directly approve pay raises for their workforce because their margins are so tight. Yes, they do have higher margins, and depending on the model, you -may- pay an extra $100 to $200 that goes to Apple's bottom line. Most of the rest is Apple picking superior hardware. Go check a teardown list.

Richman recalled that Apple amassed $4.976 billion in revenue from the sale of 3.76 million Macs during its previous quarter, yielding an average selling price of $1,323.40 per Mac. He then multiplied that figure by a 28% gross margin estimate for Mac sales from Jefferies & Co. -- which is still several hundred basis points below the company's reported average -- to arrive at a profit of $370.55 per Mac sold.

By comparison, HP’s Personal Systems Group brought in $9.415 billion in revenue and turned a profit of $533 million last quarter. The PC maker's operating margin, which doesn’t factor in overhead costs, came in at 5.66%.

Eh? They bought spectrum but were not allowed to use it for interference with neighboring spectrum...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2011/12/21/falcones-lightsquared-faces-enemies-on-all-sides/

He thought he’d cleared the last hurdle standing between him and the trade of his life in January 2011, when the FCC granted LightSquared permission to operate a combined cellular/satellite communications network in the so-called L-band, adjacent to the frequencies GPS uses. That theoretically made Falcone’s 56 megahertz of radio spectrum, purchased for about $2 billion in a series of transactions a few years ago....

/em mine

but I don't think there is some big conspiracy to block it or actual cures. I think the much simpler solution is that curing most diseases is much harder than curing it. And drug companies do come out with things like antibiotics that do in fact cure disease.

With all due respect, like most people inside and outside the medical community, you've been fed a line of complete bullshit.

I've got karma to burn so here goes (this is just scratching the surface):

Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Harvard Medical Students Rebel Against Big Pharma Ties

"More Marketing Than Science" - An Anonymous Confession About Deceptive Marketing Published in the British Medical Journal

Big pharma loves the (non-stop) war on cancer

The Nature of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Big Pharmaâ(TM)s War on Health

The drugs donâ(TM)t work: a modern medical scandal ~ Ben Goldacre

Money, Politics, and Health Care: A Disease-Creation Economy â" Part I by Mark Hyman, MD

Corruption in Drug Research and in Medicine

A.M.A. and the Drug Cartel

The Disease Economy

25 Shocking Facts That Prove That The Entire U.S. Health Care Industry Has Become One Giant Money Making Scam

Scientific Sleight of Hand: Two Ways Big Pharma Lies to You

People & Power - Drug Money

The 6 Types of Pills Big Pharma Wants You Hooked On for Life

Should We Stop Trying To Cure Cancer?

Top Ten Reasons To Avoid Your Doctor

Doctored - The Movie

The Cure For Cancer Suppressed

This is why content delivery systems need to be licensed by governments. This wouldn't have happened if Twitter were prohibited because it's unlicensed.

It's a safety issue. Just like the license you need before you can drive your own car. Just like the license you need to be a barber. Or the permit that those kids should have gotten before the cops shut down their lemonade stand. Or the license that that guy in North Carolina needs to publish dietary advice on his blog. Or the law license that Elizabeth Warren doesn't need because she's one of the special people.

Leo Traynor should be ashamed for having an unlicensed conversation with his Troll. Is he a certified criminal counselor? He should have gotten the authorities involved, because they should always be involved. In everything.

...I figure yet another reason not to have a Facebook account....bypasses the problem (and many other privacy issues) entirely.

Except not having a FB account at all is apparently reason for employers to reject you now. Seriously. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/

Speaking as someone who's been using Linux and championing it in server and limited, special purpose desktop environments since the 90s, I wholeheartedly agree with your general premise. That said, I think there's an important lesson here that you probably see yourself, but didn't express.

Apple went from Mac OS 9 in 1999 (the final progression in the "classic" series beginning with 1.0 in 1984, closely followed by Windows 1.0 in 1985 [albeit only a highly limited MS-DOS graphical shell]) to Mac OS X in 1999/2000 following the purchase of NeXT in the 90s. This essentially meant Mac OS became a *nix operating system with a pretty GUI; the emphasis on its lineage is further reinforced by the release of Mac OS X Sever prior to a general desktop OS release. Especially considering the company's prior struggles and obvious challenges maintaining its existence as an integrated systems vendor (operating system plus their hardware), they really bet the farm on this.

As it turns out, Mac OS X became what many people expected from the "Linux on the desktop" dream, at least in terms of basic *nix underpinnings and reasonable extensibility. This occurred because Apple drove the campaign bus, so to speak, as a single corporate entity bent on carving out its share of the market pie. They delivered what the market judged to be a good product, largely based on usability principles (that we may or may not personally agree with) and reputation for It Just Works reliability.

Consequently, Apple is now the most valuable company in the world. While I continue to operate all my server infrastructure on Debian, I'm typing this from a three year old MacBook Pro. In my view, consistency, stability, support, and marketing to tell the world about all of it have won the day for Apple. I have yet to see a single Linux vendor competently fulfill those requirements when it comes to mass market desktop sales. Perhaps I never will. In the end, that's actually okay with me, since I will simply continue to use the tool that works best and is best accepted in business environments for different roles. For several years running, that's mostly meant Debian on servers and Mac OS X on desktops, and things Just Work.

The state of Texas threatened something like that. It didn't work.

The temperature is much lower and so less heat energy is lost during the storage. The rate of cooling is much lower.

And a fair amount of the heat in the water can allegedly be reused:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericagies/2012/01/25/greening-the-grid-lightsail-aims-to-make-power-cleaner-by-making-energy-storage-cheap-and-plentiful/

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/danielle-fong/

Maybe not some "shady" roll your own linux vpn...but some Cisco product? Why not?

It's funny you should say that, but to the Chinese authorities, and to everyone else who's not american, Cisco is now the poster boy of shadiness.

The entire Welfare Queen concept has been thoroughly debunked, time and time again, and fraudulent usage of state welfare/UI programs is less than 2% of all recipients.The stereotypical "I'm going to have more babies" person doesn't exist. Study after study proves no correlation between family size and family benefits within welfare recipients; that is, people that could get more welfare for more babies don't actually have more babies than those who are not eligible for the same.

The scumbag portion of that 47% is the 1% who are making over $500K using loopholes to avoid paying income tax. The rest of it are paying taxes, just not income taxes and are hardworking people who are receiving tax credits, people on social security, people who don't make enough money to support their families and are eligible for tax credits. Don't look at the poor to see who's abusing the system. Generally they don't have time, or resources to figure out how to exploit things. That's the providence of the rich who can pay to have people figure out how to best exploit it.

None of this information is hard to find, so instead of saying we need to measure this, get off your ass and go and read the measurements.

The scariest thing here is that you pretend to be informed enough to vote and one would assume you actually attempt the process. Politics being the same elsewhere is probably the closest truth in your post.

Well, I can provide citations for everything I've said, but I note other people elsewhere in this thread have already started doing so. climate change, conception...

There is a great discussion of this in The Wide Lens.

In a nutshell, Michelin developed technology similar to this in the 1990's and partnered with Goodyear to bring it to market. It was pretty cool, but the problem was they couldn't get tire installers to pay for the expensive equipment and employee certification required to implement the technology. Fine for commercial or military fleets, but the overall ecosystem didn't work for consumers. What ended up happening was that when you got a flat you ended up having to replace all 4 tires and only at the dealer. Lawsuits ensued.

Hopefully they have resolved the ecosystem issues.

The problem areas in the American fiscal environment are pretty well known. I don't think anyone would seriously try to blame Muslims for them as it would be obvious nonsense.

FDR knew that the funding mechanism for Social Security had to change long term, and it has never been done. And please spare us from nonsense about wars and defense spending being the problem, because they aren't. Rapidly increasing social welfare spending mixed with soaring debts, and an economy that is frozen by government meddling (such as helped create the housing and mortgage meltdown) and unable to produce jobs, growth, and income, is what will push the United States over the edge, if anything.

Chart of the Week: Federal Spending on Defense vs. Entitlements

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?
Who doesn’t pay taxes, in eight charts
Public-Employee Unions Gone Wild,
The Path to Economic Disaster

And lets not forget the Euro crisis - if Europe collapses, it might very well drag down the US. Once again, it would be pretty clear what happened.

If there is a new "Hitler", he is very unlikely to come from conservative America.

Bad socialist habits coming to America: Obama's Creepy Cult of Personality

America's 'Fascist Moment'

. . . . contemporary liberalism descended from the ranks of 20th-century progressivism, and "shares intellectual roots with European fascism."

When Mr. Goldberg uses the term "liberal fascism," he is not offering a right-wing version of the left's smears. He knows it is a loaded term. What he is talking about is the historical idea of fascism: a corporatist and statist social structure that creates a deep reliance of its subjects on the government and engenders a sense of community and purpose. In American politics, this tendency toward statism has always been much more at home on the left than on the right.

It is impossible in a short review to do justice to the rich intellectual history of American liberalism that Mr. Goldberg offers to his readers. He has read widely and thoroughly, not only in the primary sources of fascism, but in the political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject.

Readers will learn that the very term "liberal fascism" came from the pen of H.G. Wells, the famed socialist author who delivered a speech at Oxford University in 1932 that included hosannas to both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. "I am asking," Wells told the students, "for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis." Democracy, he argued, had to be replaced with new forms of government that would save mankind, producing a "'Phoenix Rebirth' of liberalism" that would be called "Liberal Fascism." Like the activism, experimentation, and discipline that made the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany new dynamic societies, the West too could reach such a plateau by adopting the new soft fascism that suited it best.. . . .

Indeed, America, as Mr. Goldberg writes, certainly had a "Fascist moment." It was not, however, during the current presidency, but one that extended from progressivism through the New Deal. Mr. Goldberg traces the American roots of liberal fascism to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who saw i

The royal bitch is we have more than enough evidence to prove Google knew BEFORE they bought YouTube that it was nothing but a video version of TPB or Grokster, there are even emails from the Google Video guys saying "We can't host that stuff, nearly every video on their site is infringing"...yet they bought it anyway.

Read the emails and you'll see there is one set of laws for large megacorps like Google, another for the little guys. hell the emails from the YouTube guys to each other were basically "Build the shit out of the userbase and sell it to a sucker and bail before the lawsuits hit" only by selling to Google the lawsuits never showed up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcwebertobias/2011/12/22/how-u-s-carriers-fool-you-into-thinking-your-iphone-4s-is-unlocked/

Forbes article on how verizon is not actually unlocking the iphone 4S

You know what's hilarious? Best Buy is still more profitable than Amazon:

net profit
Best Buy: 12m
Amazon: 7m

http://www.jagsreport.com/2012/09/amazon-announces-96-profit-decrease-nasdaq-amzn/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/08/21/best-buy-profit-plunges-retailer-suspends-guidance-and-share-buybacks/

It is not reporting science, it is reporting a columnists suggestion on making climate deniers pay for their "stupidity" by being the first to starve when climate change ruins the crops.

Here is the original article, if you really want to read it from a "scientist":

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/04/19/a-tennessee-firemans-solution-to-climate-change/

Not that Steve Zwick is a scientist, he is just passing judgement on them.

So no, no science involved here at the Daily Mail, just reporting the suggested attacks on scientists by a non-scientist, who want terrible things to happen to them because they don't agree with what Zwick thinks they should say.

Kinda like the prosecutors in Russia, who I am sure are not scientists either.

Same song, different band.

I am not convinced that the current 'gloabal warming' trend is solely due to human activity. James Hansen may be NASA, but some of his conclusions seem dubious. And then the climategate scandal. There is so much pro and con and hysteria about global warming, it's hard to know who is a reliable source of information. To me, there seems to be natural warming and cooling cycles, wetter and dryer cycles. The drought this summer made me think we are in for another 'dustbowl' period like in the thirties. Sure we have better agricultural practices now, so we won't have huge dust storms, but we could be in for the same type of severe drought. I remember reading a story that in the 1920s, ships were able to sail over the ice-free north pole in the summer. My though here is this points to a cycle covering decades. There is another cycle covering centuries. There was a medieval warm period from around 800 or 900 CE to about 1300 CE where the climate warmed enough they were growing grapes in Britain. In this time the Vikings colonized Greenland and Iceland and reportedly landed in Nova Scotia. Some archeological evidence for Vikings has been found in NS. But the one thing that has puzzled archeologists is the mention of the Vikings finding wild grapes in NS-which doesn't make sense unless the climate was warmer at that time than now. In the early 1300s the climate changed to what is termed 'the little ice age'. It got cold enough that the Thames would freeze hard enough and the British has Frost Fairs on it. It was cold enough that the picture of George Washington's crossing with all the ice chunks in it was correct. Around the 1850s, the earth started warming up again. And there is a cycle of tens or hundreds of thousands of years where the earth is warm or the earth has a big ice age--yet the planet is still habitable. There are also news stories where some scientists have found evidence that the earth was warmer in the human past than now, or that not all the ice is going away. Here is a sample of some: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s_greenland_glacier_retreat/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/

I am not convinced that the current 'gloabal warming' trend is solely due to human activity. James Hansen may be NASA, but some of his conclusions seem dubious. And then the climategate scandal. There is so much pro and con and hysteria about global warming, it's hard to know who is a reliable source of information. To me, there seems to be natural warming and cooling cycles, wetter and dryer cycles. The drought this summer made me think we are in for another 'dustbowl' period like in the thirties. Sure we have better agricultural practices now, so we won't have huge dust storms, but we could be in for the same type of severe drought. I remember reading a story that in the 1920s, ships were able to sail over the ice-free north pole in the summer. My though here is this points to a cycle covering decades. There is another cycle covering centuries. There was a medieval warm period from around 800 or 900 CE to about 1300 CE where the climate warmed enough they were growing grapes in Britain. In this time the Vikings colonized Greenland and Iceland and reportedly landed in Nova Scotia. Some archeological evidence for Vikings has been found in NS. But the one thing that has puzzled archeologists is the mention of the Vikings finding wild grapes in NS-which doesn't make sense unless the climate was warmer at that time than now. In the early 1300s the climate changed to what is termed 'the little ice age'. It got cold enough that the Thames would freeze hard enough and the British has Frost Fairs on it. It was cold enough that the picture of George Washington's crossing with all the ice chunks in it was correct. Around the 1850s, the earth started warming up again. And there is a cycle of tens or hundreds of thousands of years where the earth is warm or the earth has a big ice age--yet the planet is still habitable. There are also news stories where some scientists have found evidence that the earth was warmer in the human past than now, or that not all the ice is going away. Here is a sample of some: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s_greenland_glacier_retreat/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/

So there just wasn't any other way to get this stimulative effect besides the Apollo program?

Well ...

Let's compared the stimulative effects of space programs (manned or unmanned) to welfare program, shall we ?

I'll take one from each category - For space program, let's take the Hubble Space Telescope

Including all the delays and all the budget over-runs of the Hubble Space Telescope, the total cost for the entire program (some 20+ years) came to about a whopping U$ 6 Billions.

http://www.astrophys-assist.com/educate/hubble/hubble.htm

On the other hand, on the welfare side of the equation --

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/20/welfare-tackling-the-fastest-growing-part-of-government-spending/

In fiscal year 2011, total welfare costs equaled $927 billion ($717 billion from the federal government and $210 billion from states).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/

Just one program, Medicaid, cost the federal government $275 billion in 2010, which is slated to rise to $451 billion by 2018.

Do I need to say more ?

Yes, yes, and yes. ARM designs good CPU cores and does so inexpensively, no doubt about it. At the risk of sounding contrary, the real race isn't between Intel's budget and ARM's: it's between Intel on one side and ARM, Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, and more (AMD is my favorite dark horse) on the other. Apple alone has bought multiple chip design companies, and probably a whole company's worth of engineers from the formerly-ATi side of AMD. I think that's why their phones cream their competitors (or all ISA flavors) in the aforementioned examples.

It's true, ARM will continue to increase it's R&D investment now (which is really their whole budget), but that investment will increase more slowly for awhile, the company is trimming its hiring plans for the rest of 2012 amid concerns about a potential sales slowdown in the second half. (Intel is trimming, too, it's more macro economic than anything else.) But I maintain that ARM Holdings vs. Intel is only a small part of ARM vs. Intel ;-)

It has taken Intel an enormous effort to get as far as it has in the mobile space, which isn't very far (yet). I have no idea what Intel is making on mobile CPUs, but it's not selling many of them at this point. It's going to keep trying, though. Intel knows that ARM is now where Intel was when Intel beat up IBM and took IBM's lunch money, so they're not going to stop. I think it's going to stay interesting.

I hope we get to talk more about architecture some time.

1) Really American's don't think they are special? How about whenever people get into chants like USA USA USA. Naaa nothing special at all.

Europeans have a long tradition of destructive and irrational nationalism. (You've even invented some thought-terminating cliches to thinkstop anyone from bringing them up.) USA, on the other hand, is a nation based more on the philosophical ideas of its founders rather than an accident of birth. (Or at least it would be if all Dems were deported to France...) It's not perfect, but it ranks near the top by most benchmarks of freedom - especially in how much of your labor you actually own!

I am an American by choice and conviction, and I have an extensive decision-support matrix to tell me when it will be time to become a Singaporean (etc) "by choice and conviction" instead. That time has not (yet?) come. USA, and particularly New Hampshire, is the best place for me to be. (And I wonder how NH would compare to the handpicked Potemkin Villages that Europeans like to select as their champions for each specific statistical comparison, forgetting the drastic difference of population and circumstance...)

2) Really have more wealth?

Yes, USA'ians have more wealth than the Europeans (with the possible exception of Norwaystan, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Vatican, and other tiny nations that could make money in particularly easy ways), and, most importantly, more opportunity to create wealth based on hard work and merit.

Compare USA's rankings in per-capita disposable income, median household income, etc. Then adjust them by purchasing power and fertility rates, and you'll see just how far ahead USA really is.

Without adjusting for fertility, all income statistics are meaningless! A family where the wife reduces her working hours and has 2-3 children has much lower income (particularly "per capita") than a family of DINKs, but children do have a great value, and a collapsing population eventually leads to an economic crisis.

3) Oh give me an effen break. European's hate success. Yes that's right because nobody drives any European cars, or buys any European products. No Europeans don't hate success. What Europeans hate is the difference in wealth between the poorest and the richest. If you think giving rich people privileges is right, then let me introduce you to King Louie XVI.

Of course Europe manufactures some cars (which are generally unreliable, overhyped, and overpriced). It has cheaper labor than the USA (particularly in Spain, Poland, etc), which gives it some advantage. Japan, SK, and soon China have an advantage over both. Europe's main export appeal is in luxury products that are a relic of its glorious past. But far fewer Europeans can afford to drive them...

You have confirmed the stereotype of Europeans hating success by comparing success to a despotic monarch - something that USA'ians weren't historically very fond of. As a country approaches sufficient economic freedom, over time, wealth flows out of the hands of the incompetent and is created in t

No, I was going by the fact that Honolulu has the 4th lowest violent crime rate in the country.

If Apple Can Copy Braun Then Why Can't Samsung Copy Apple?

Many yes, but far too many feel that "If that's the price we have to pay for safety, then so be it".

Not as many as people think.

It's all in how the survey question is stated. If you ask people "Do you support airport security?" you'll find overwhelming support. Obviously. Ask people if they support the TSA irradiating its citizens, "raping" them with invasive pat-downs -- whether they agree with those security procedures, and you'll get much lower response. It's like the IRS: Most people acknowledge they have to pay their taxes. Few agree with the collection tactics the IRS uses, or the lack of judicial oversight.

Lots of these systems use proprietary protocols and have pushed out 3rd party verification by researchers. the random number being generated by time? Any serious security auditor would have caught that if the banks allowed them in, one of the golden rules of cryptography is to have a proper random number generator. The contact-less systems in the US came under similar fire this past year, after years of assurances by card issuers that it couldn't happen. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/01/30/hackers-demo-shows-how-easily-credit-cards-can-be-read-through-clothes-and-wallets/

I'm certainly no expert in the area, but wouldn't they only be liable for taxes based on profits made only when they sold the stock?

No, not exactly. You can end up losing your money and still have to pay AMT on the gains at the time you exercised (but kept) the options.

This happened to people in the dot com days. (My info is from one of the first results when I searched for "dot com alternative minimum tax". http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/18/amt-credit-refundable-personal-finance-taxes-iso.html)

Basically, I think it happened like this.. They had options at $1, the stock was currently $100. So if they exercised-but-kept (there's a more appropriate word for that I think) the shares, they now had AMT income of $99 * number of shares. (Of course, they paid $1 * number of shares for them.)

Then the stock tanked to $.05/share. If they had 20 shares, they now made $1, paid $20 for them, and had phantom taxable income of $99 * 20 = $1980, which was never in their pocket, but they have to pay tax on it.

Unfortunately the odds are pretty hight that some of the rare earths required to make your phone were dug out in central Africa with wars being fought over them, and other more horrendous atrocities.

It would be nice to have the option of byuing devices that didn't cost lives, even if they cost more. I understand that not everyone feels this way, but some of us would like that option.

No. China extracts approximately 95% of all rare earths

And they don't export them.

It is pretty safe to say, If you own an electronic device, you have benefited from Chinese labor.

And it really doesn't matter where it was manufactured or assembled.

I read an interesting article a few months ago on Forbes regarding some signs of Apple being a bubble. Some of them seem somewhat anecdotal, but it was an interesting read. http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/04/23/five-signs-that-apple-is-a-bubble/3/

Probably because of the rounded corners bit, along with Jobs threatening to go nuclear on Android. You don't threaten anything Google around here, even though their company is built on ripping others off from YouTube piracy to wholesale book theft, but since they use Linux internally you aren't allowed to mention that.

Personally i think ALL these megacorps are spoiled backstabbing little shits and hope the lawyers bleed the whole damned bunch dry. i'll kick back with the popcorn and laugh and laugh as they blow fortunes trying to fuck each other over.