It's lazy to say that the world and humanity will not end (literally no one is suggesting the world will end, and the worst predictions do not predict humanity will end). It's also lazy to say that reasonable analysis is labelled as far right. The quote you posted can't be debated.
Taken to their logical conclusion, increasing population, increasing CO2 output, increasing pollution, and environmental change suggest that sometime soon things are going to reach a tipping point in the broadest sense, financial, socioeconomic, environmental. This is reasonable analysis that also can not be debated and should not be labelled left or right. Saying "I believe a future technology we have no hint of now is going to emerge soon enough to be able to have enough of an impact on this problem to materially affect the current trajectory" is the ultimate laziness. Renewables/nextgen nuclear seem at best to be able to take a bite out of current output not take a bite out of atmospheric CO2. And keep in mind we need that tech now, not in 50 years. Citation welcome, but please don't cite something lame.
But for me it really comes down to the hard fact that we are borrowing against the future for our present. The morality of what we're doing is incontrovertibly bad. I would not want to be my own grandchild, I would be freakin pissed at how selfish and lazy my grandparent had been. Granted humanity has always done this, but our ability to consume and pollute has grown exponentially.
I did. The only mention in there of regulation or legislation was a whole section on big guys suing little guys as a delaying tactic and legislation that tries to stifle competition promulgated by the big players' lobbyists. Again not denying regulation. But I'd love to see some sort of evidence that gov't regulatory costs (not costs involved with combatting frivolous lawsuits or combatting anti-competitive legislation) are really a significant part of a ISPs start-up costs as you suggest. No one would debate that legal services are expensive but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison and surely you have something more concrete. And as another poster has already said, we need to balance out regulatory costs vs the cost of negotiating with property owners individually in a world without the allegedly costly regulation.
So here's an article on it. It doesn't seem to be regulation that's the issue, it seems to be the sheer expense of building out the infrastructure for your customers.
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
My recollection is that there used to be hundreds of little ISPs that served the Internet up over dial-up phone lines. Over time of course the state of the art became DSL, coax cable and fiber. The broadband infrastructure is and was always owned by a variety of big companies. But the bottom line is that for one reason or the other all the small ISPs have been bought up by the big players, the Bells have been remerged into AT&T due to deregulation, and there has been considerable consolidation in the cable space, leaving most consumers without a lot of choice. AT&T in the summary essentially parrots this.
No one is doubting that there is regulation, but I would need to see something more than your post to draw any conclusions about whether lots of regulation keeps little guys from starting ISP businesses or if it's really just the big companies being anti-competitive. Certainly there used to be lots of little ISPs but perhaps the landscape has shifted to much more regulation in the last 15 years? By all means, back up your post with some substance.
It "used" to be deniers saying there was no warming, but that didn't seem to work, so then they're saying it's natural causes.
It "used" to be deniers saying it's natural causes, but that didn't seem to work, so now they're saying it's humans causing warming but it's not going to get that bad.
Both sides are guilty of getting things wrong (failures are built in to the scientific method) and overstating the effect (either too much or too little). The media inevitably injects emotion to get eyeballs. You have to read between the lines.
The thoughtful have always realized that humans are causing warming, have been for most of the last 150 years, and will continue for the next 50 or so, when hopefully technology and social pressure will finally tip the needle. The warming is locked in for longer. There will be economic downsides and upsides, and some people will suffer and some will profit.
I come at it from the prospective of, we each need to have a conversation with our grandchildren in 50 years, where the trends for CO2 and warming continue, and can we say we did as much as we could to give them the same kind of world we thrived in. Arguments that "the environment could be better!" miss the point, we know we have a great environment now. It's selfish and myopic to assume that the environment in 50 years (assuming warming trends continue) will be better due to technology or what have you.
It is genuinely hard to believe this level of ignorance still exists. Android may well have (many) more phones out there, but that's completely irrelevant. Marketshare does not equal profit or revenue, either for the hardware vendor or for the app software vendor. There is more money to be made in Apple's ecosystem because something like $2 is spent in iOS software for every $1 on Android software (Android downloads are higher than iOS). It's also a royal pain to support Android because of the 2 zillion handsets out there running different resolutions, OS versions, and hardware. FWIW OP doesn't claim iOS developers don't make any money.
Starting in 1940 (it was lower before 1940) the top marginal tax rate was 81%, and it stayed high, as high as 92%, through 1980 at 70%, quickly dropped to 50% in 1982, and has been low since then. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
Note this doesn't say what income the rate was calculated against ($1M? $500K?).
My understanding is that in the late '70s and early '80s there was a shift in policy favoring keeping wealth from the evil government that was just going to spend it on stuff you didn't care about.
Of course. You have the option to not upgrade.
It's not Apple's "our way or the highway", by the way, it's the tech industry. Linux, Windows, network protocols, node libraries, you want the latest and greatest (note: not saying apfs is great!), it may break something. Apple's not doing anything different, they're just an easy target for the lazy and those that don't understand their business model.
Once you father a child the state OAG has you by the balls, and even if you sign a legally binding contract for child support at x dollars per month, they can come after you every three years for more for no more reason than time has passed. No requirement on the mother to prove she's capable or actually spending the money on the children neither. Staying married is only an option for some. It's cynical as heck but protection, you know, protects. You.
If Mr. Cook wanted Apple to show that they cared about the countries they do business in as well as make an immediate impact, they would stop offshoring their profits and pay taxes on them in the country they made the money.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Apple doesn't offshore their profits; they make a profit selling their wares overseas (as well as at home). They now have a sizable amount of cash held overseas from profits made on those overseas sales that they have chosen, thus far, not to repatriate due to the taxes they'd have to pay on repatriating that profit, if the news reports are to be believed. So they have paid US taxes on US profit, but have not paid US taxes on profits made abroad (yet). If that's "offshoring profit" I would argue that that's just business. I think most international companies behave the same way. By the way, they also can't use that money in the US for R&D or dividends or whatever until they repatriate it, so it's not win-win. They'd like to repatriate the cash, they just don't NEED to in the current tax climate given the US profit they're already making. As far as I know they do pay taxes in the country they made the money in; the issue is the US taxes they'd have to pay. Now the Irish thing is different but related, I gather Ireland gave them a sweetheart tax deal that neither Ireland nor Apple is wanting to change, understandably. Since they're paying taxes in the countries where they make a profit they are having a mostly immediate impact to the treasuries in those countries (and the US).
Claiming that Apple has lost it's mojo because it hasn't had an iPhone/iPad/iPod-sized hit in several years is preposterous on its face, as is claiming it because Siri only stores 6 months of user data, which is a direct reflection of Apple's stance on privacy. Personally I don't want companies storing my data for years and am willing to trade that for less accurate results.
First of all, if the phone doesn't work for you, for any reason, get a different phone. This is a universal law and I'm surprised at the legs the bars story has.
Second, the inescapable conclusion is that the antenna is poorly designed on this phone. "Bad design" is the harshest cut for Apple, hence it's ridiculously bad behavior which to me is the real story.
Finally, the editorializing over Apple faithful vitriol is not welcome. You can find zealots for almost anything, and a troll is a troll. Indeed the editorializing is flame-bait, which is ironic, in that the flame-bait is calling others out on their flame-baiting.
First off, if your FIRST reaction to this post is along the lines of "you fools, there are no games for Macs" or "Mac hardware is so much more expensive than PC hardware", you are obviously bringing a lot of personal bias to the discussion. This topic has nothing to do with those topics. Many companies make many great Mac games with or without Apple's support. My takeaway from this is that Valve couldn't make their own business case for porting to the Mac. They are of course entirely within their rights to do this, but to shift the blame to Apple is patently ridiculous. They may not be doing it because they wouldn't make much money, or because they are incompetent and can't figure out the APIs, or whatever. But his reasoning that somehow Apple needs to hold their hand through the process, and THAT's the stumbling block about porting, flies in the face of all the great games that already exist. I see a speck of hubris on Apple's part, but that's Apple's problem. Mac users suffer for it, but the blame lays squarely with Valve for the lack of port.
Slashdot Mirror
It's lazy to say that the world and humanity will not end (literally no one is suggesting the world will end, and the worst predictions do not predict humanity will end). It's also lazy to say that reasonable analysis is labelled as far right. The quote you posted can't be debated.
Taken to their logical conclusion, increasing population, increasing CO2 output, increasing pollution, and environmental change suggest that sometime soon things are going to reach a tipping point in the broadest sense, financial, socioeconomic, environmental. This is reasonable analysis that also can not be debated and should not be labelled left or right. Saying "I believe a future technology we have no hint of now is going to emerge soon enough to be able to have enough of an impact on this problem to materially affect the current trajectory" is the ultimate laziness. Renewables/nextgen nuclear seem at best to be able to take a bite out of current output not take a bite out of atmospheric CO2. And keep in mind we need that tech now, not in 50 years. Citation welcome, but please don't cite something lame.
But for me it really comes down to the hard fact that we are borrowing against the future for our present. The morality of what we're doing is incontrovertibly bad. I would not want to be my own grandchild, I would be freakin pissed at how selfish and lazy my grandparent had been. Granted humanity has always done this, but our ability to consume and pollute has grown exponentially.
I did. The only mention in there of regulation or legislation was a whole section on big guys suing little guys as a delaying tactic and legislation that tries to stifle competition promulgated by the big players' lobbyists. Again not denying regulation. But I'd love to see some sort of evidence that gov't regulatory costs (not costs involved with combatting frivolous lawsuits or combatting anti-competitive legislation) are really a significant part of a ISPs start-up costs as you suggest. No one would debate that legal services are expensive but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison and surely you have something more concrete. And as another poster has already said, we need to balance out regulatory costs vs the cost of negotiating with property owners individually in a world without the allegedly costly regulation.
So here's an article on it. It doesn't seem to be regulation that's the issue, it seems to be the sheer expense of building out the infrastructure for your customers. https://arstechnica.com/inform...
My recollection is that there used to be hundreds of little ISPs that served the Internet up over dial-up phone lines. Over time of course the state of the art became DSL, coax cable and fiber. The broadband infrastructure is and was always owned by a variety of big companies. But the bottom line is that for one reason or the other all the small ISPs have been bought up by the big players, the Bells have been remerged into AT&T due to deregulation, and there has been considerable consolidation in the cable space, leaving most consumers without a lot of choice. AT&T in the summary essentially parrots this. No one is doubting that there is regulation, but I would need to see something more than your post to draw any conclusions about whether lots of regulation keeps little guys from starting ISP businesses or if it's really just the big companies being anti-competitive. Certainly there used to be lots of little ISPs but perhaps the landscape has shifted to much more regulation in the last 15 years? By all means, back up your post with some substance.
It "used" to be deniers saying there was no warming, but that didn't seem to work, so then they're saying it's natural causes.
It "used" to be deniers saying it's natural causes, but that didn't seem to work, so now they're saying it's humans causing warming but it's not going to get that bad.
Both sides are guilty of getting things wrong (failures are built in to the scientific method) and overstating the effect (either too much or too little). The media inevitably injects emotion to get eyeballs. You have to read between the lines.
The thoughtful have always realized that humans are causing warming, have been for most of the last 150 years, and will continue for the next 50 or so, when hopefully technology and social pressure will finally tip the needle. The warming is locked in for longer. There will be economic downsides and upsides, and some people will suffer and some will profit.
I come at it from the prospective of, we each need to have a conversation with our grandchildren in 50 years, where the trends for CO2 and warming continue, and can we say we did as much as we could to give them the same kind of world we thrived in. Arguments that "the environment could be better!" miss the point, we know we have a great environment now. It's selfish and myopic to assume that the environment in 50 years (assuming warming trends continue) will be better due to technology or what have you.
It is genuinely hard to believe this level of ignorance still exists. Android may well have (many) more phones out there, but that's completely irrelevant. Marketshare does not equal profit or revenue, either for the hardware vendor or for the app software vendor. There is more money to be made in Apple's ecosystem because something like $2 is spent in iOS software for every $1 on Android software (Android downloads are higher than iOS). It's also a royal pain to support Android because of the 2 zillion handsets out there running different resolutions, OS versions, and hardware. FWIW OP doesn't claim iOS developers don't make any money.
Starting in 1940 (it was lower before 1940) the top marginal tax rate was 81%, and it stayed high, as high as 92%, through 1980 at 70%, quickly dropped to 50% in 1982, and has been low since then. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... Note this doesn't say what income the rate was calculated against ($1M? $500K?). My understanding is that in the late '70s and early '80s there was a shift in policy favoring keeping wealth from the evil government that was just going to spend it on stuff you didn't care about.
Of course. You have the option to not upgrade. It's not Apple's "our way or the highway", by the way, it's the tech industry. Linux, Windows, network protocols, node libraries, you want the latest and greatest (note: not saying apfs is great!), it may break something. Apple's not doing anything different, they're just an easy target for the lazy and those that don't understand their business model.
Once you father a child the state OAG has you by the balls, and even if you sign a legally binding contract for child support at x dollars per month, they can come after you every three years for more for no more reason than time has passed. No requirement on the mother to prove she's capable or actually spending the money on the children neither. Staying married is only an option for some. It's cynical as heck but protection, you know, protects. You.
If Mr. Cook wanted Apple to show that they cared about the countries they do business in as well as make an immediate impact, they would stop offshoring their profits and pay taxes on them in the country they made the money.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Apple doesn't offshore their profits; they make a profit selling their wares overseas (as well as at home). They now have a sizable amount of cash held overseas from profits made on those overseas sales that they have chosen, thus far, not to repatriate due to the taxes they'd have to pay on repatriating that profit, if the news reports are to be believed. So they have paid US taxes on US profit, but have not paid US taxes on profits made abroad (yet). If that's "offshoring profit" I would argue that that's just business. I think most international companies behave the same way. By the way, they also can't use that money in the US for R&D or dividends or whatever until they repatriate it, so it's not win-win. They'd like to repatriate the cash, they just don't NEED to in the current tax climate given the US profit they're already making. As far as I know they do pay taxes in the country they made the money in; the issue is the US taxes they'd have to pay. Now the Irish thing is different but related, I gather Ireland gave them a sweetheart tax deal that neither Ireland nor Apple is wanting to change, understandably. Since they're paying taxes in the countries where they make a profit they are having a mostly immediate impact to the treasuries in those countries (and the US).
Claiming that Apple has lost it's mojo because it hasn't had an iPhone/iPad/iPod-sized hit in several years is preposterous on its face, as is claiming it because Siri only stores 6 months of user data, which is a direct reflection of Apple's stance on privacy. Personally I don't want companies storing my data for years and am willing to trade that for less accurate results.
First of all, if the phone doesn't work for you, for any reason, get a different phone. This is a universal law and I'm surprised at the legs the bars story has. Second, the inescapable conclusion is that the antenna is poorly designed on this phone. "Bad design" is the harshest cut for Apple, hence it's ridiculously bad behavior which to me is the real story. Finally, the editorializing over Apple faithful vitriol is not welcome. You can find zealots for almost anything, and a troll is a troll. Indeed the editorializing is flame-bait, which is ironic, in that the flame-bait is calling others out on their flame-baiting.
First off, if your FIRST reaction to this post is along the lines of "you fools, there are no games for Macs" or "Mac hardware is so much more expensive than PC hardware", you are obviously bringing a lot of personal bias to the discussion. This topic has nothing to do with those topics. Many companies make many great Mac games with or without Apple's support. My takeaway from this is that Valve couldn't make their own business case for porting to the Mac. They are of course entirely within their rights to do this, but to shift the blame to Apple is patently ridiculous. They may not be doing it because they wouldn't make much money, or because they are incompetent and can't figure out the APIs, or whatever. But his reasoning that somehow Apple needs to hold their hand through the process, and THAT's the stumbling block about porting, flies in the face of all the great games that already exist. I see a speck of hubris on Apple's part, but that's Apple's problem. Mac users suffer for it, but the blame lays squarely with Valve for the lack of port.