But what is the point of arbitrarily multiplying marketshare by -1 and then saying Android is declining in negative marketshare?
1. It is true. 2. Proof that unqualified downward slide need not mean financial woes, or any woes in general. Remember you were asking people for evidence of Apple's financial woes when they said Apple was on a downward slide?
I could arbitrarily multiply Apple marketshare by Pi and Android marketshare by Pi and say Android's share of the Pi x Marketplace is bigger than Apples. That also would say nothing about anything.
Yes, you being stupid, would do this even if it proved nothing. My multiplication by -1 proved a point, as I demonstrated above.
You say downward slide can never apply to all aspects? Aspects of what?
Downward slide of what? Answer to this question of mine is the same as the answer to your above quoted question of yours.
Remember this all started with my asking a simple question in response the person who posted that apple was on a downward slide. ( a wide open general statement)
A wide open general statement which you interpreted in a narrow sense so asked evidence of Apple's financial problems, now or in near future. How about letting it remain wide open general ?
It means the downward slide applies to at least one aspect.
Downward slide can never apply to all aspects - e.g. when it applies to marketshare, it does NOT apply to negative marketshare. So the only reasonable conclusion is that a downward slide, unqualified, applies to at least one aspect.
It's not a handheld device then. But DIY and open source community has always been ahead in versatility department. You being a developer have a choice of installing Ubuntu on your tablet. General public will get the choice in a decade or 3. Nothing surprising.
If it is "all over the forums", you can find specific instances where someone talked about Apple's financial woes and direct your rant there. Here, someone said Apple is declining, and that is correct w.r.t. marketshare. Android is declining w.r.t. negative marketshare.
Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc
Thanks, I'll make it a point to ask an American what they have done about TSA molestations, NSA snoopings etc. with their guns. I hear laws of the US are still being written by corporations - hope the Americans start using the guns for some better purpose than just for school shootings.
If the young man is so stupid as to only attack the granny when she is locked up in her home, he isn't much of a threat even without granny having a gun, is he? He'll keep tripping over himself, or something.
Ok, all you moral appeal people commenting in this story have failed to come up with the "moral" tax amount a company should pay. Why is that? You want to try?
Make it so the costs paid to parent companies, or companies owned by a parent company are not considered costs
But Australia has not "made it" so. They are fine with whatever they have made it, if they weren't fine they would have changed it. I don't see anything wrong.
People like to say Apple is declining, but there really isn't any financial indication this is so.
Right. Apple is declining in marketshare. Android is declining in negative marketshare. There is no financial issues for Apple right now. There are financial issues for many Android device makers. No one said declining marketshare necessarily means declining profits, necessarily immediately. Cool down.
Only problem is your imagination of people saying Apple is facing financial issues now or in near future.
GE corn has lower levels of mycotoxins that are reasonably certain to cause cancer - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.... A new variety (GE or not) might arise that is better in that regard (and other). Why shouldn't customers be able to know the exact variety they are buying? GE or not.
The silliness of both situations was kind of the point. I know the difference between theory the scientific term and theory the common vernacular. You can be intentionally misleading with accurate terms, just like misuse of food labeling can be misleading even if accurate.
No, "just a theory" is not factual. "Evolution is a theory" is factual enough, and there is no problem with such a labelling.
Similarly, GMO is not factual (enough). Exact variety is, and can not be misleading any more than labelling the protein/fat/carbohydrate content of food.
A snickers bar on its own is likely to cause severe complications, but if it's eaten at the same time as a protein and fat heavy meal it's going to be much less problematic
Protein and fat heavy meal is, by elimination, low carb.
Primarily my statement was invitation for you (and 300 million other citizens of the US) to change the rules of the game - it being legal and your argument of it being better. Secondarily, this is why my reply didn't end there, I proceeded with arguments why there is no moral issue either. You hadn't made your stand completely clear whether you have a moral or a legal problem with this.
Anyway, I think we can both agree that it's entirely reasonable for both a restaurant and a winery to only allow paying customers to lounge about the premises.
Not complete. "Paying" is not enough - paying enough in most circumstances such that the business model is profitable and acceptable for the culture they are operating in; is what is necessary.
The real estate argument doesn't do it for me. It's not like restaurants that charge corking fees will charge you if you're just hanging out and pretending to drink an imaginary bottle of wine, which would take up just as much of their real estate as if the bottle were real.
Banks incur real costs if lots of people pretend to want to take a loan and endlessly inquire about it. Super markets would incur loss of business if people start meditating in large groups for long periods of time. Restaurants would not like if people start hanging out and pretending to drink an imaginary bottle of wine. Guess what? You are not the first to think about these things.
To cover unforeseen circumstances - most restaurants and super-markets reserve rights of admission, bank executives can refuse to answer your loan queries. Start talking when large number of people start doing these and these will be explicitly prohibited from rules of businesses of banks supermarkets and restaurants. Till then it is few explicit rules and a right to tell customers to fuck off. Having to read a 20 million word constitution of each place of business would kill a HUGE majority of GOOD economic activity, don't you think?
Greed is legal, yes. The question is, why do you think it's moral?
Restaurants do not have anything resembling a monopoly in most markets, they are far from an essential service for most people, regulatory and economic barriers to entry are negligible. The "problems" with greed in restaurants is easily fixable by you starting a non-greedy restaurants. If most people flock to yours, there you are. If most don't, most don't consider the particular variety of "greed" immoral, and hence society in general doesn't deem it immoral. QED.
The argument 'start a business of your own' doesn't hold in monopoly cases, essential services and barriers to entry; for obvious reasons. But that is not the case here.
A restaurant charging a corking fee makes about as much sense as a winery charging a "opening your box of crackers" fee
Ok, both are legal. I don't see a problem.
Practically, dynamics are different. Restaurants typically operate in orders of magnitude more expensive real-estate than wineries. So people picnicking in restaurants is orders of magnitude more expensive for restaurants than for wineries.
BUT, it is legal to operate a restaurant in the middle of nowhere. I doubt customers(if any) would be charged for bringing in their own food/wine/water/furniture there. It is also legal to operate a winery in million-dollar-per-square meter real-estate. I doubt customers(if any) would be allowed to breathe without charges in such wineries.
Google and Facebook provide (artificial) intelligence, storage, processing. Comcast doesn't, it is just a conduit. Thus it makes sense for Google and Facebook to charge Comcast. This argument doesn't work in reverse.
It not about a slow economy â" it is about the regional economy
Makes no sense. Regional economy could be slow, non-Regional economy could be slow, Regional economy could be non-slow, non-Regional economy could be non-slow.
False dichotomy taken to stupid extremes.
farm economy was collapsing
Again, use of confusing words. Economy rarely "collapses" as in cease to exist, whether regional economy or non-regional economy. Economies just slow down. But banks "collapse", as in cease to exist, much much much more frequently. Using the same word for both banks and economies merely serves to confuse.
Also, farm economy could fail as in cease to exist, but this is not what you had mentioned earlier, to which my response was directed. You said "regional" economy which is what I was addressing.
For example, in the 1980s the overall economy was doing but in the Midwest the farm economy was collapsing from a bubble in land prices. Failing farms took down the local implement dealers, restaurants, etc. Banks were failing left and right
And bubble in land prices could not have been seen by the banks? Bubble developed all of its own without contribution from banks? No. From many reports, banks were a major cause of the bubble, exactly due to taking undue risks.
Which is what I was saying - simple banks that just lend money have no business taking risks - fuelling bubbles nor failing just because some local businesses fail.
Slashdot Mirror
But what is the point of arbitrarily multiplying marketshare by -1 and then saying Android is declining in negative marketshare?
1. It is true.
2. Proof that unqualified downward slide need not mean financial woes, or any woes in general. Remember you were asking people for evidence of Apple's financial woes when they said Apple was on a downward slide?
I could arbitrarily multiply Apple marketshare by Pi and Android marketshare by Pi and say Android's share of the Pi x Marketplace is bigger than Apples.
That also would say nothing about anything.
Yes, you being stupid, would do this even if it proved nothing. My multiplication by -1 proved a point, as I demonstrated above.
You say downward slide can never apply to all aspects?
Aspects of what?
Downward slide of what? Answer to this question of mine is the same as the answer to your above quoted question of yours.
Remember this all started with my asking a simple question in response the person who posted that apple was on a downward slide. ( a wide open general statement)
A wide open general statement which you interpreted in a narrow sense so asked evidence of Apple's financial problems, now or in near future. How about letting it remain wide open general ?
Marketshare is never negative. But everyone has a marketshare, which can be multiplied by -1 to yield negative marketshare. What is so hard about it?
Multiplication by -1 is under the usual principle of multiplication. Consult 6th standard mathematics book for details.
No one has a marketshare that is negative. But everyone has a negative marketshare, which is their marketshare multiplied by -1.
If marketshare is 30%, negative marketshare is -30%.
I've been using this term from my first reply to you.
It means the downward slide applies to at least one aspect.
Downward slide can never apply to all aspects - e.g. when it applies to marketshare, it does NOT apply to negative marketshare. So the only reasonable conclusion is that a downward slide, unqualified, applies to at least one aspect.
It's not a handheld device then. But DIY and open source community has always been ahead in versatility department. You being a developer have a choice of installing Ubuntu on your tablet. General public will get the choice in a decade or 3. Nothing surprising.
If it is "all over the forums", you can find specific instances where someone talked about Apple's financial woes and direct your rant there. Here, someone said Apple is declining, and that is correct w.r.t. marketshare. Android is declining w.r.t. negative marketshare.
Who said anything about changing the angle? The angle matters, not change in angle , nor any derivative of angle w.r.t. time.
Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc
Thanks, I'll make it a point to ask an American what they have done about TSA molestations, NSA snoopings etc. with their guns. I hear laws of the US are still being written by corporations - hope the Americans start using the guns for some better purpose than just for school shootings.
If the young man is so stupid as to only attack the granny when she is locked up in her home, he isn't much of a threat even without granny having a gun, is he? He'll keep tripping over himself, or something.
Ok, all you moral appeal people commenting in this story have failed to come up with the "moral" tax amount a company should pay. Why is that? You want to try?
Ok, so you enlighten everyone about the exact amount of taxes Apple should pay.
Technically, wages are all profit anyway
No. Doing a job can have expenses - travelling to workplace, buying/maintaining tools, eating right to enable one to work etc.
Many countries have a "standard deduction" from salaries that are exempted from tax for this reason.
Make it so the costs paid to parent companies, or companies owned by a parent company are not considered costs
But Australia has not "made it" so. They are fine with whatever they have made it, if they weren't fine they would have changed it. I don't see anything wrong.
Exact angle from horizontal/surface has to be specified.
People like to say Apple is declining, but there really isn't any financial indication this is so.
Right. Apple is declining in marketshare. Android is declining in negative marketshare. There is no financial issues for Apple right now. There are financial issues for many Android device makers. No one said declining marketshare necessarily means declining profits, necessarily immediately. Cool down.
Only problem is your imagination of people saying Apple is facing financial issues now or in near future.
Customers want no more of beating a desktop user interface into a handheld device any more. E.g. WinMo. Get over it.
Or install Ubuntu on your Android phone.
GE corn has lower levels of mycotoxins that are reasonably certain to cause cancer - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.... A new variety (GE or not) might arise that is better in that regard (and other). Why shouldn't customers be able to know the exact variety they are buying? GE or not.
The silliness of both situations was kind of the point. I know the difference between theory the scientific term and theory the common vernacular. You can be intentionally misleading with accurate terms, just like misuse of food labeling can be misleading even if accurate.
No, "just a theory" is not factual. "Evolution is a theory" is factual enough, and there is no problem with such a labelling.
Similarly, GMO is not factual (enough). Exact variety is, and can not be misleading any more than labelling the protein/fat/carbohydrate content of food.
A snickers bar on its own is likely to cause severe complications, but if it's eaten at the same time as a protein and fat heavy meal it's going to be much less problematic
Protein and fat heavy meal is, by elimination, low carb.
Morality and legality are two different issues
Primarily my statement was invitation for you (and 300 million other citizens of the US) to change the rules of the game - it being legal and your argument of it being better. Secondarily, this is why my reply didn't end there, I proceeded with arguments why there is no moral issue either. You hadn't made your stand completely clear whether you have a moral or a legal problem with this.
Anyway, I think we can both agree that it's entirely reasonable for both a restaurant and a winery to only allow paying customers to lounge about the premises.
Not complete. "Paying" is not enough - paying enough in most circumstances such that the business model is profitable and acceptable for the culture they are operating in; is what is necessary.
The real estate argument doesn't do it for me. It's not like restaurants that charge corking fees will charge you if you're just hanging out and pretending to drink an imaginary bottle of wine, which would take up just as much of their real estate as if the bottle were real.
Banks incur real costs if lots of people pretend to want to take a loan and endlessly inquire about it. Super markets would incur loss of business if people start meditating in large groups for long periods of time. Restaurants would not like if people start hanging out and pretending to drink an imaginary bottle of wine. Guess what? You are not the first to think about these things.
To cover unforeseen circumstances - most restaurants and super-markets reserve rights of admission, bank executives can refuse to answer your loan queries. Start talking when large number of people start doing these and these will be explicitly prohibited from rules of businesses of banks supermarkets and restaurants. Till then it is few explicit rules and a right to tell customers to fuck off. Having to read a 20 million word constitution of each place of business would kill a HUGE majority of GOOD economic activity, don't you think?
Greed is legal, yes. The question is, why do you think it's moral?
Restaurants do not have anything resembling a monopoly in most markets, they are far from an essential service for most people, regulatory and economic barriers to entry are negligible. The "problems" with greed in restaurants is easily fixable by you starting a non-greedy restaurants. If most people flock to yours, there you are. If most don't, most don't consider the particular variety of "greed" immoral, and hence society in general doesn't deem it immoral. QED.
The argument 'start a business of your own' doesn't hold in monopoly cases, essential services and barriers to entry; for obvious reasons. But that is not the case here.
A restaurant charging a corking fee makes about as much sense as a winery charging a "opening your box of crackers" fee
Ok, both are legal. I don't see a problem.
Practically, dynamics are different. Restaurants typically operate in orders of magnitude more expensive real-estate than wineries. So people picnicking in restaurants is orders of magnitude more expensive for restaurants than for wineries.
BUT, it is legal to operate a restaurant in the middle of nowhere. I doubt customers(if any) would be charged for bringing in their own food/wine/water/furniture there. It is also legal to operate a winery in million-dollar-per-square meter real-estate. I doubt customers(if any) would be allowed to breathe without charges in such wineries.
Google and Facebook provide (artificial) intelligence, storage, processing. Comcast doesn't, it is just a conduit. Thus it makes sense for Google and Facebook to charge Comcast. This argument doesn't work in reverse.
I NEVER suggested banks be regional. Read the post again.
It not about a slow economy â" it is about the regional economy
Makes no sense. Regional economy could be slow, non-Regional economy could be slow, Regional economy could be non-slow, non-Regional economy could be non-slow.
False dichotomy taken to stupid extremes.
farm economy was collapsing
Again, use of confusing words. Economy rarely "collapses" as in cease to exist, whether regional economy or non-regional economy. Economies just slow down. But banks "collapse", as in cease to exist, much much much more frequently. Using the same word for both banks and economies merely serves to confuse.
Also, farm economy could fail as in cease to exist, but this is not what you had mentioned earlier, to which my response was directed. You said "regional" economy which is what I was addressing.
For example, in the 1980s the overall economy was doing but in the Midwest the farm economy was collapsing from a bubble in land prices. Failing farms took down the local implement dealers, restaurants, etc. Banks were failing left and right
And bubble in land prices could not have been seen by the banks? Bubble developed all of its own without contribution from banks? No. From many reports, banks were a major cause of the bubble, exactly due to taking undue risks.
Which is what I was saying - simple banks that just lend money have no business taking risks - fuelling bubbles nor failing just because some local businesses fail.