I appreciate that you want to turn this into an Apple vs. Android thing, but my commentary was more about the average consumer in general, and this article happened to be about iPhones, as was the comment I initially responded too. Thanks for inserting your holy war into it; however, you can probably find a more appropriate place to piss into the wind somewhere else, as no one here cares.
Also, "The only people who ask me for help with their phones have an Android" sounds like a desperate lie to support your off-topic opinion about Apple vs. Android.
Sorry to tell, but Apple's customers aren't as stupid as you pretend they are. You shouldn't judge them by how stupid the fellow customers are of whatever you bought.
I'm an Apple customer, genius. But take a look around at the iPhone users you know - not the ones you work with, the ones in your family and social circle that are constantly asking you for free tech support. How many of them understand, really understand, what an SD card is and how to get data on and off of it? Maybe half? A quarter?
If you really think Icahn is dumping the stock so that it plunges and he can buy it back at a discount and watch it rise again, you're certainly free to do the exact same thing - that is, buy it after your predicted fall happens, and then sell it rises again. That's if you really think that's what's going on.
The truth is, the stock ticked downward a touch, just over 1%, after the news of the Icahn move, but that was nothing compared to how much it went down earlier in the week on their reduced revenue news. So no, it appears the Icahn sell is more media hype than actual force on the price of the stock.
But a trivial way to get out of being blamed for it; just put up a FAQ page explaining SD card classes, and tell the users they need to get a fast one.
Oh right. Because such a high percentage of iPhone buyers check FAQ pages before buying something like an SD card. Or even know what an SD card is. You just made an argument against your own claim.
Nice try. You left out that whole bit about how the law "bans local jurisdictions from offering any LGBT protections beyond what the state does, which is "none". Cities had local laws saying, for example, you couldn't refuse to rent to a gay couple just because they were gay...those city laws are now struck from the books by state mandate." My thanks to Sowelu (713889) for articulating this.
Stop bullshitting. It was done to ensure individual communities couldn't pass laws that prohibit discrimination. In other words, the Jesus-yokels in the state house said "We're looking at YOU, Raleigh, Charlotte, and especially you hippies in Asheville, and we don't like you getting all fag-friendly and whatnot."
The law also limits the definition of sex to the sex at birth, meaning that even if someone was a complete post-op transsexual, they're still considered be their original sex by the state.
You're as entitled to your opinion on this as anyone else, but at least have the balls to admit what the law really is, instead of all this double-talk about "different and contradictory laws" in different communities. What happened to that conservative maxim of keeping power out of the hands of central government and letting local communities decide what's best? Oh, that was hypocrisy? What a shock.
You can still see one of the early undersea cables with nothing more than snorkeling gear.
Go to Hanauma Bay in Hawaii. A few dozen feet from the sandy beach, there exists a man-made channel that was cut through the coral in 1956. The ends of those cables are still there, about 10-15 feet underwater.
"Only last April, Canada's Competition Bureau concluded a two-year investigation into allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by Labatt and Molson against several Quebec microbreweries.
Although no formal charges flowed from that probe, the Competition Bureau found validity in complaints levied by l'Association des Microbrasseurs du Québec that "a number of (Molson and Labatt) clients are bound by potentially anti-competitive contract clauses," including restrictions on competitors, exclusivity clauses for their products, preferences for shelf-space and preferred positioning, and restrictions that require establishments to sell certain Labatt and Molson brands at the same price as their competitors.
Unfortunately for the micros, all that "did not substantially lessen or prevent competition in the beer industry."
According to the bartenders I spoke to in Ottawa, the same contract clauses are a problem in Ontario as well. Bars can opt to sign a contract with one of the big boys, or choose to carry micro-brews and ignore the big boys.
This was maybe true through the 1990's, but now it's just a well-worn joke that's not even relevant anymore.
The explosion of craft beer in the USA in the last 20-30 years has resulted in our beer being the real beer. Go to Canada these days, and you'll find most bars carry only beers from one giant distributor or the other: Anheuser-Busch-InBev (owns Labatt) or SABMiller (owns Molson). This is due to those companies saying "You want our beers? Fine, you just can't carry anyone else's. Including microbrews." All of their beers, of course, are light-colored water.
In the US, we no longer have that problem, and in NY's Penn Station, you can buy any one of a large number of IPA's, stouts, or whatever you want, and bring it on the train with you (as long as it's in a paper bag) regardless of color or alcohol content.
That's your opinion. But then again, when someone calls out an idiot for being an idiot, that idiot always thinks that person is an asshole. So for what it's worth, who cares?
Complete non sequitur. I only cared to tell you what an idiot you are. I don't what the "it" in your ridiculous statement referred to anyway, and neither do you, I suspect. You fucking moron.
I did look it up, and found nothing that approached bragging. Perhaps you'd care to share evidence of this so-called "bragging" that you're so sure happened. Or maybe you're just anti-uber because, well, fuck new technology, or something.
This is the company who bragged about how their revenue spiked during the Sydney shooting
Bullshit. That never happened. Uber made news during that shooting because the spike in ride requests triggered computerized surge pricing, which human beings immediately stopped once they figured out it was a shooting that was happening, and in fact, made the rides free. You literally just made that drivel up, and somehow got modded up for it. Congratulations.
A guy "has a feeling" that is backed up by no facts whatsoever, and you have a feeling that it's the "Best. Comment. Ever." with extra periods, because that makes your reading of it somehow more emphatic. Gotcha.
At some point, you have to look at the motivations that each party has for their "speech." ExxonMobil has a huge vested interest in downplaying the role that burning oil has in accelerating climate change.
Suppressing their speech? When they have billions at their disposal to continue lying to the public? That's a laugh.
Not true. You only get to deduct the interest on your mortgage for your primary residence. Rental properties and second homes do not get that benefit. It really is mostly the middle-class family that gets that benefit. And it's a huge benefit, relative to most people's incomes.
A simple way to have a tunable progressive scheme would be Y = aX + bX^2. Set a and b as you like.
Your proposal is certainly better than what the flat-taxers are gibbering about, but it's still an oversimplification. One obvious example of why: a very large percentage of the income of homeowners goes towards real estate tax and interest on their mortgage, which is currently tax deductable. If you eliminate those deductions, you've now raised taxes (by a lot) on a huge chunk of the population, mostly middle-class. How do you think that's going to fly? Note, I'm not debating whether it's right/wrong, fair/unfair - I'm just saying that it's politically impossible, because a vast majority of the US's population would be against it.
The problem is, in terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich. We're already currently concentrating wealth upwards; what you're describing would accelerate that process.
I can see that you extrapolated based on those three columns, but the graphic isn't exactly clear on how they're arriving at those numbers - they could be pulled from two totally different sets of data for all we know. In a clearer statement, "data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders" in 2011.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate that you want to turn this into an Apple vs. Android thing, but my commentary was more about the average consumer in general, and this article happened to be about iPhones, as was the comment I initially responded too. Thanks for inserting your holy war into it; however, you can probably find a more appropriate place to piss into the wind somewhere else, as no one here cares.
Also, "The only people who ask me for help with their phones have an Android" sounds like a desperate lie to support your off-topic opinion about Apple vs. Android.
Sorry to tell, but Apple's customers aren't as stupid as you pretend they are. You shouldn't judge them by how stupid the fellow customers are of whatever you bought.
I'm an Apple customer, genius. But take a look around at the iPhone users you know - not the ones you work with, the ones in your family and social circle that are constantly asking you for free tech support. How many of them understand, really understand, what an SD card is and how to get data on and off of it? Maybe half? A quarter?
If you really think Icahn is dumping the stock so that it plunges and he can buy it back at a discount and watch it rise again, you're certainly free to do the exact same thing - that is, buy it after your predicted fall happens, and then sell it rises again. That's if you really think that's what's going on.
The truth is, the stock ticked downward a touch, just over 1%, after the news of the Icahn move, but that was nothing compared to how much it went down earlier in the week on their reduced revenue news. So no, it appears the Icahn sell is more media hype than actual force on the price of the stock.
But a trivial way to get out of being blamed for it; just put up a FAQ page explaining SD card classes, and tell the users they need to get a fast one.
Oh right. Because such a high percentage of iPhone buyers check FAQ pages before buying something like an SD card. Or even know what an SD card is. You just made an argument against your own claim.
Sadly being former flower children they got turned on and promptly told me they had something important to attend to and made me leave.
Did you say "sadly" because you think arguing about the cloud is more important than fucking, or because they made you leave?
Did you copy-paste this from 2003?
When did pirating stop being tempting?
What's life like in your decade?
Nice try. You left out that whole bit about how the law "bans local jurisdictions from offering any LGBT protections beyond what the state does, which is "none". Cities had local laws saying, for example, you couldn't refuse to rent to a gay couple just because they were gay...those city laws are now struck from the books by state mandate." My thanks to Sowelu (713889) for articulating this.
Stop bullshitting. It was done to ensure individual communities couldn't pass laws that prohibit discrimination. In other words, the Jesus-yokels in the state house said "We're looking at YOU, Raleigh, Charlotte, and especially you hippies in Asheville, and we don't like you getting all fag-friendly and whatnot."
The law also limits the definition of sex to the sex at birth, meaning that even if someone was a complete post-op transsexual, they're still considered be their original sex by the state.
You're as entitled to your opinion on this as anyone else, but at least have the balls to admit what the law really is, instead of all this double-talk about "different and contradictory laws" in different communities. What happened to that conservative maxim of keeping power out of the hands of central government and letting local communities decide what's best? Oh, that was hypocrisy? What a shock.
You can still see one of the early undersea cables with nothing more than snorkeling gear.
Go to Hanauma Bay in Hawaii. A few dozen feet from the sandy beach, there exists a man-made channel that was cut through the coral in 1956. The ends of those cables are still there, about 10-15 feet underwater.
"Only last April, Canada's Competition Bureau concluded a two-year investigation into allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by Labatt and Molson against several Quebec microbreweries.
Although no formal charges flowed from that probe, the Competition Bureau found validity in complaints levied by l'Association des Microbrasseurs du Québec that "a number of (Molson and Labatt) clients are bound by potentially anti-competitive contract clauses," including restrictions on competitors, exclusivity clauses for their products, preferences for shelf-space and preferred positioning, and restrictions that require establishments to sell certain Labatt and Molson brands at the same price as their competitors.
Unfortunately for the micros, all that "did not substantially lessen or prevent competition in the beer industry."
https://nowtoronto.com/news/wh...
According to the bartenders I spoke to in Ottawa, the same contract clauses are a problem in Ontario as well. Bars can opt to sign a contract with one of the big boys, or choose to carry micro-brews and ignore the big boys.
This was maybe true through the 1990's, but now it's just a well-worn joke that's not even relevant anymore.
The explosion of craft beer in the USA in the last 20-30 years has resulted in our beer being the real beer. Go to Canada these days, and you'll find most bars carry only beers from one giant distributor or the other: Anheuser-Busch-InBev (owns Labatt) or SABMiller (owns Molson). This is due to those companies saying "You want our beers? Fine, you just can't carry anyone else's. Including microbrews." All of their beers, of course, are light-colored water.
In the US, we no longer have that problem, and in NY's Penn Station, you can buy any one of a large number of IPA's, stouts, or whatever you want, and bring it on the train with you (as long as it's in a paper bag) regardless of color or alcohol content.
Well, if it's your opinion that someone that can't leave something alone is an asshole, I guess you're calling yourself an asshole.
I disagree, though. I still just think you're an idiot.
That's your opinion. But then again, when someone calls out an idiot for being an idiot, that idiot always thinks that person is an asshole. So for what it's worth, who cares?
Complete non sequitur. I only cared to tell you what an idiot you are. I don't what the "it" in your ridiculous statement referred to anyway, and neither do you, I suspect. You fucking moron.
I did look it up, and found nothing that approached bragging. Perhaps you'd care to share evidence of this so-called "bragging" that you're so sure happened. Or maybe you're just anti-uber because, well, fuck new technology, or something.
No, it was a good example of calling out an idiot for his teenager-inspired response to drivel.
This is the company who bragged about how their revenue spiked during the Sydney shooting
Bullshit. That never happened. Uber made news during that shooting because the spike in ride requests triggered computerized surge pricing, which human beings immediately stopped once they figured out it was a shooting that was happening, and in fact, made the rides free. You literally just made that drivel up, and somehow got modded up for it. Congratulations.
A guy "has a feeling" that is backed up by no facts whatsoever, and you have a feeling that it's the "Best. Comment. Ever." with extra periods, because that makes your reading of it somehow more emphatic. Gotcha.
We're all fucked.
At some point, you have to look at the motivations that each party has for their "speech." ExxonMobil has a huge vested interest in downplaying the role that burning oil has in accelerating climate change.
Suppressing their speech? When they have billions at their disposal to continue lying to the public? That's a laugh.
Not true. You only get to deduct the interest on your mortgage for your primary residence. Rental properties and second homes do not get that benefit. It really is mostly the middle-class family that gets that benefit. And it's a huge benefit, relative to most people's incomes.
A simple way to have a tunable progressive scheme would be Y = aX + bX^2. Set a and b as you like.
Your proposal is certainly better than what the flat-taxers are gibbering about, but it's still an oversimplification. One obvious example of why: a very large percentage of the income of homeowners goes towards real estate tax and interest on their mortgage, which is currently tax deductable. If you eliminate those deductions, you've now raised taxes (by a lot) on a huge chunk of the population, mostly middle-class. How do you think that's going to fly? Note, I'm not debating whether it's right/wrong, fair/unfair - I'm just saying that it's politically impossible, because a vast majority of the US's population would be against it.
The problem is, in terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich. We're already currently concentrating wealth upwards; what you're describing would accelerate that process.
I can see that you extrapolated based on those three columns, but the graphic isn't exactly clear on how they're arriving at those numbers - they could be pulled from two totally different sets of data for all we know. In a clearer statement, "data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders" in 2011.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crim...