I wonder how many Americans know a second language at all, never mind whether they're good or bad in it.
Why wonder, when the data is at your finger tips? Unless by "wonder" you actually mean "insinuate"?
According to Wikipedia, around 16% of Americans speak a foreign language fluently. Also according to Wikipedia, around 11% of Indians speak English fluently.
And if you really mean it when you say "whether they're good or bad in it", then the number for Americans would be very high (I'd estimate 80%+) since high school students are required to take three to five years of training in a foreign language of their choosing.
Bullshit. If you think Republicans will raise a finger to defend your rights, then I have to wonder what rock you've been living under for the past few decades.
Neither party cares much about copyright, because outside of Slashdot, not many people care. On literally every other issue, it's the Democrats who have tried (meekly) to defend individual rights.
You're right about one thing. Our direction over the next few years is hugely important. If you want more corporate money in politics, more rights for corporate persons, fewer civil liberties, war with Iran, the privatization of Social Security, the elimination of Medicare, and even lower taxes on the top 1%, then vote Republican.
"The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.[1] The case, United States v. AT&T, led to a settlement finalized on January 8, 1982"
The ball was rolling well before Reagan's election, and the result was final less than a year into his first term.
And it's not that Reagan did something in particular with regards to AT&T. It's the entire mindset that he championed, and which the Republicans continue to champion to this day. A mindset which puts profit above all else, and pushes the foolish (intentionally dishonest?) notion that if you make the 1% super-duper-rich, some of that money will trickle down to the rest of us. A mindset that says taxes should always go down, the government should always be weaker, and corporations should always be more powerful.
Sadly, in most places where we might want to do such a thing, the local government/warlords would drive around, take all the money, and kill anyone who tried to keep some for themselves.
Care to give an example to back up your claim? He seemed to do a good job, from the little I saw about him. He was behind the push to bring better internet access to rural areas, expanding access to electronic health records, and he opposed SOPA. For a new position without a very clearly defined set of goals, I'd say he did fine.
Reagan happened. Him and all the corporatist looters to follow in his footsteps. These days, corporations aren't just people, they're better than people.
You didn't miss much. The article contains none of the information that would actually be interesting.
What is the cost to residents? Is it going to be a public service like a utility, or is there a private company running it? How much bandwidth do they actually get? The 802.22 spec says 22 Mbps per channel, but what does that mean for users? Are they in a 40 mW area or in one of the spaces authorized for the full 100 mW? If the former, how long will the range actually be?
This has the potential to be very good, and I'd really like to get some info on how it works out.
So many lies, I feel like I'm shouting into a hurricane....
1) It's good that the stimulus funds came with strings attached. That's a heck of a lot better than just handing out money with no oversight. If these companies weren't willing to accept the strings, all they had to do was pay back the funds, or not take them in the first place. When you take out a loan, the bank isn't "taking over" your finances.
2) Since you acknowledge that banks left the TARP program because they didn't like the attached strings, that seems to me to be proof that it was NOT a takeover. Generally you don't let people opt out of being taken over.
3) You claim that a bill 2000 pages long is incomprehensible. Do you realize how short that is? That's less than half the length of the Harry Potter series. Even less, in terms of words, since if you've ever looked at the raw text of a bill you'd know they have huge margins and triple spacing between lines. If you think no one has read it, you're a fool. You can be sure that the Republicans went through every page with a fine tooth comb. The worst they found was the provision that allowed the sick and elderly to get a free appointment with their doctor to discuss Do Not Resuscitate Orders and the drafting of a will.
4) The Keystone pipeline was rejected because the Republicans didn't give Obama time to thoroughly review it. They insisted on setting a short timeline, so he rejected it rather than approve it without doing the necessary research.
5) The fact that China has poor environmental regulations doesn't mean we should follow suit. That's called a race to the bottom. If China made slavery legal, would you suggest we do the same to stay competitive?
6) I live in Washington state. I closely followed the build up to Boeing's announcement that they were moving the 787 production to SC. It certainly seemed like retaliation, and the NLRB agreed.
7) Your claim that all five members were appointed by Obama is laughable. You clearly just looked it up on Wikipedia, because otherwise you would know that at the time of the ruling the board had two Obama appointees, one Bush appointee, one Clinton appointee, and one vacancy. Do your homework next time.
The Republicans were able to filibuster in the Senate for all but a few months. For the first several months, they made Al Franken jump through hoop after hoop, long past the point that it was obvious to everyone that he had beaten Mr. Coleman. Then, just a month later, Ted Kennedy passed away, his illness having prevented him from voting during that one month window. Paul Kirk was appointed in late September as a temporary senator ahead of the special election. Four months later, Scott Brown took office.
That was it: a four month window during which the Democrats were focused on getting health care reform passed. For the other twenty months of that two year period, the Republicans had the filibuster, and used it at every opportunity.
I don't know if you're just horribly misinformed, or a liar, but nearly every single thing in your post is wrong. It's what's called a Gish Gallop. You rattle off so many lies that people look and say "Wow, that guy sure knows his stuff" while the honest people can't refute them all fast enough. But I'll try anyway.
Starting from the quoted section: 1) He didn't reverse on closing Gitmo. The Republicans blocked all funding for the transfer of prisoners elsewhere. He is literally not allowed to spend a single cent on closing the prison. You cannot blame him for that. 2) The use of drones by police departments is a nonissue. These drones aren't carrying weapons -- they're no different from helicopters, except that they're cheaper, which is a good thing. 3) SOPA & PIPA were opposed by Obama. You can't seriously be complaining about his support for something he didn't support. You might as well complain about his support for Al Qaeda. 4) The stimulus funds did not "take over" any industries. Give one example. Just one. Literally, I want you to name a single American business which is now government owned because of the stimulus. Either that, or come back and apologize for lying. 5) TARP was passed by Bush, and didn't take over banks in any case. 6) The health care law does not take over anything. It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. The man is lying to you. 7) New environmental controls? You'll need to be more specific, but I suspect this is every bit as much a lie as the rest of your talking points. 8) Obama didn't make the decision about Boeing's plant. The National Labor Relations Board did. That's their job... to determine when businesses are retaliating against unions and block such maneuvers. The fact that South Carolina is a "red" state was irrelevant. Boeing was retaliating against their unionized workers in Washington state, and that's against the law.
Living in the US doesn't mean that you don't have an axe to grind against the country. There are plenty of people here who'd like to see the whole thing burn down.
If you think that the US is less free than Europe, you have an absurdly idyllic idea of what Europe is like.
It's a murder. We have hundreds of them every year. We have people get killed over domestic disputes, gang fights, muggings gone bad. We've got crazy parents killing their kids. We've got political crazies killing people they've been told to hate. We've got more murders than we know what to do with.
So why in God's name should we care about this one murder up in Canada? Because it's an "honor" killing? We get those in the US too, and they do get reported on, including the religion of the killer. Even those are barely newsworthy. Sad, yes, but more Americans die in gang violence than to honor killings by, like, a factor of a thousand.
And by the way, it is a fucking lie to say that only Fox reported "that they're muslim". Here's a quote from CNN's coverage: "In taking the stand, [Mohammed] Shafia swore to tell the truth on the Quran and he again invoked the holy book to say Islam does not condone killing people to preserve a family's honor." I suppose it didn't use the word "muslim", but if you've got a guy named Mohammed being sworn in on a Quran and talking about the teachings of Islam, you'd have to be pretty dense not to figure it out. Considering that your whole point seemed to be that the American media self-censors, this lie undermines the very heart of your claim.
Step 1) Shut down NASA and the DoE (and maybe the EPA for good measure) Step 2) Give the ~$60 billion dollars per year to Lockheed Martin Step 3) Leave politics to work in the private sector Step 4) "Work" for Lockheed, earning $1 million+ a year for the rest of your life
The fact that this plan never actually involves us getting into space is incidental. I'm sure you can see what the real goal of the process is.
When did the newly elected Egyptian government espouse the destruction of another people? I suspect you're conflating them with the Iranian government or the like. That's unfair.
You are arguing that the Egyptians should have just been content to be ruled by a dictator, rather than try to rule themselves, because you've convinced yourself that they'll fuck it up. That's a very White Man's Burden sort of attitude.
By the standards of the country, the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate, and perhaps more importantly, they were elected. It's better to have an elected government than a dictator, even if that elected government does some bad stuff.
Let's not forget that America passed plenty of terrible laws when it was younger. Still does, in fact, though not to the same extent. The Sedition Act made it illegal to say anything bad about the government. Black people were deemed 3/5ths of a person. No, that doesn't mean they got three fifths of a vote. It means their owners did. They banned sodomy and alcohol. Non-protestants weren't allowed to hold office in many places.
It takes a long time for democratic countries to level out and start running themselves well. But it beats the hell out of being completely at the mercy of a dictator.
It seems like they are dumping corrupt secular dictators, just to prop up theoretically less corrupt, but still abjectly fascist slave masters wielding Sharia law.
I don't see that at all. The Muslim Brotherhood won in the election in Egypt, not to Salafis. They had an election, and they elected one of the moderate parties, by their standards. Maybe you were hoping for them to elect the liberal party, but there's a difference between "not the party I would have voted for" and "abjectly fascist slave masters".
If anyone expects Egypt to be a utopian bastion of democracy within a few years, they're fooling themselves. It never works like that. But they're taking steps in the right direction, and they fought like hell for the right to take those steps. Don't run them down for that.
From an American company? Yes. I also care more about my friends and family than I do about some people living a thousand years from now. From a purely calculating point of view, all people are of equal worth. In practice, no one actually lives their life like that. People just selectively apply that standard when it fits with the conclusion that they want to reach.
An interesting thought, but I don't think Foxconn actually does employ all that significant a percentage of the aforementioned demographics (young, employed, sane, healthy).
China has 422.3 million people between the ages of 15 and 35.
Their employment rate is 4.3%. I couldn't find a breakout by age, so we'll be conservative and assume it's 10% in this demographic, leaving 380 M in the pot.
At that point, even if you assume that half of the Chinese population is either insane or suffering serious illness, you still have 190 M people in the young, healthy, sane, employed demographic. Foxconn would make up less than half a percent of that.
I hadn't realized you're the same person who posted the initial comment, so please don't think I was singling you out.
However, you ARE misusing statistics. Maybe not intentionally, but you are all the same. You can't just say "this stat is easily available, therefore I'll apply it" while ignoring all of the factors that would clearly run against your conclusion. For example, the median American wage right now is $33k. If Microsoft decided it was going to pay it's engineers $40k, you wouldn't say, "That's a good salary, because it's above what most people make." You have to compare apples to apples.
Even less thought has been put in by the posters that refer back to the story as if suicides only happen at Chinese factories producing iPhones.
I don't think those people are being any less honest than the people who try to brush it off as a normal suicide rate by improperly applying statistics.
This isn't about me. I'm wealthy myself. I have a kickass job that pays six figures, and make a pretty significant return on my investments. By my estimates, I'll be able to retire when I'm 45 (though I'll probably choose not to). This is about the next generation. The people who won't get to have all the advantages Steve Jobs and his kind had, because the country will have been bled dry by then.
By the way, fuck you for dragging in those tired old political talking points. "Taxes are taken at gun point!" "Unions are fascist!" Turn off Rush Limbaugh and open your goddamn eyes. But since you've already decided to reduce the discussion to insult hurling and stereotyping, I'll join you...
The problem with you conservatives is that you only care for yourselves. You can't even comprehend the idea that people might care for another. The idea that I can look at a guy on the streets, and see a human being, not just some cockroach to be (at best) ignored is utterly alien to you. You're fucking sociopaths. Gee, wasn't that fun and productive?
Apple used public resources to get rich. They owe it to the public to pay to keep those resources available. Try to get over your all-consuming sense of greed, and understand that.
Do you think Steve Jobs would have started Apple if he had been born in Kenya? Would the engineers there be able to design great devices if the electricity was only on for four hours a day? What if some warlord rolled through, enslaving, raping, and murdering anyone in their way?
There's a reason you don't see any successful businesses based in Somalia. You need a prosperous, stable nation as a launching point. Companies like Apple are quite happy to take advantage of the great conditions here, but give absolutely nothing back. Those conditions won't be around for the next generation as a result.
So you're saying that Apple should be able to trademark the rounded rectangle? That's stupid. Touchscreen devices, quite obviously, should try to maximize the size of the screen relative to the device. And anything that people must handle regularly shouldn't have sharp corners. The rounded rectangle is simply a case of form following function.
Also, at least one of those photos has been manipulated to make the Samsung phone look more like the iPhone. The Galaxy S and iPhone 3G have different dimensions, including different aspect ratios, yet they appear identical in the photo comparing them. Whoops! Newsflash... if you have to lie to prove your point, you don't have one.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many Americans know a second language at all, never mind whether they're good or bad in it.
Why wonder, when the data is at your finger tips? Unless by "wonder" you actually mean "insinuate"?
According to Wikipedia, around 16% of Americans speak a foreign language fluently.
Also according to Wikipedia, around 11% of Indians speak English fluently.
And if you really mean it when you say "whether they're good or bad in it", then the number for Americans would be very high (I'd estimate 80%+) since high school students are required to take three to five years of training in a foreign language of their choosing.
Bullshit. If you think Republicans will raise a finger to defend your rights, then I have to wonder what rock you've been living under for the past few decades.
Neither party cares much about copyright, because outside of Slashdot, not many people care. On literally every other issue, it's the Democrats who have tried (meekly) to defend individual rights.
You're right about one thing. Our direction over the next few years is hugely important. If you want more corporate money in politics, more rights for corporate persons, fewer civil liberties, war with Iran, the privatization of Social Security, the elimination of Medicare, and even lower taxes on the top 1%, then vote Republican.
From the same Wikipedia article you're quoting:
"The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.[1] The case, United States v. AT&T, led to a settlement finalized on January 8, 1982"
The ball was rolling well before Reagan's election, and the result was final less than a year into his first term.
And it's not that Reagan did something in particular with regards to AT&T. It's the entire mindset that he championed, and which the Republicans continue to champion to this day. A mindset which puts profit above all else, and pushes the foolish (intentionally dishonest?) notion that if you make the 1% super-duper-rich, some of that money will trickle down to the rest of us. A mindset that says taxes should always go down, the government should always be weaker, and corporations should always be more powerful.
Sadly, in most places where we might want to do such a thing, the local government/warlords would drive around, take all the money, and kill anyone who tried to keep some for themselves.
Care to give an example to back up your claim? He seemed to do a good job, from the little I saw about him. He was behind the push to bring better internet access to rural areas, expanding access to electronic health records, and he opposed SOPA. For a new position without a very clearly defined set of goals, I'd say he did fine.
Reagan happened. Him and all the corporatist looters to follow in his footsteps. These days, corporations aren't just people, they're better than people.
You didn't miss much. The article contains none of the information that would actually be interesting.
What is the cost to residents? Is it going to be a public service like a utility, or is there a private company running it?
How much bandwidth do they actually get? The 802.22 spec says 22 Mbps per channel, but what does that mean for users?
Are they in a 40 mW area or in one of the spaces authorized for the full 100 mW? If the former, how long will the range actually be?
This has the potential to be very good, and I'd really like to get some info on how it works out.
So many lies, I feel like I'm shouting into a hurricane....
1) It's good that the stimulus funds came with strings attached. That's a heck of a lot better than just handing out money with no oversight. If these companies weren't willing to accept the strings, all they had to do was pay back the funds, or not take them in the first place. When you take out a loan, the bank isn't "taking over" your finances.
2) Since you acknowledge that banks left the TARP program because they didn't like the attached strings, that seems to me to be proof that it was NOT a takeover. Generally you don't let people opt out of being taken over.
3) You claim that a bill 2000 pages long is incomprehensible. Do you realize how short that is? That's less than half the length of the Harry Potter series. Even less, in terms of words, since if you've ever looked at the raw text of a bill you'd know they have huge margins and triple spacing between lines. If you think no one has read it, you're a fool. You can be sure that the Republicans went through every page with a fine tooth comb. The worst they found was the provision that allowed the sick and elderly to get a free appointment with their doctor to discuss Do Not Resuscitate Orders and the drafting of a will.
4) The Keystone pipeline was rejected because the Republicans didn't give Obama time to thoroughly review it. They insisted on setting a short timeline, so he rejected it rather than approve it without doing the necessary research.
5) The fact that China has poor environmental regulations doesn't mean we should follow suit. That's called a race to the bottom. If China made slavery legal, would you suggest we do the same to stay competitive?
6) I live in Washington state. I closely followed the build up to Boeing's announcement that they were moving the 787 production to SC. It certainly seemed like retaliation, and the NLRB agreed.
7) Your claim that all five members were appointed by Obama is laughable. You clearly just looked it up on Wikipedia, because otherwise you would know that at the time of the ruling the board had two Obama appointees, one Bush appointee, one Clinton appointee, and one vacancy. Do your homework next time.
Liar, liar, pants on fire :-P
The Republicans were able to filibuster in the Senate for all but a few months. For the first several months, they made Al Franken jump through hoop after hoop, long past the point that it was obvious to everyone that he had beaten Mr. Coleman. Then, just a month later, Ted Kennedy passed away, his illness having prevented him from voting during that one month window. Paul Kirk was appointed in late September as a temporary senator ahead of the special election. Four months later, Scott Brown took office.
That was it: a four month window during which the Democrats were focused on getting health care reform passed. For the other twenty months of that two year period, the Republicans had the filibuster, and used it at every opportunity.
Yet more proof that a good turn of phrase matters more to people than truth.
Society is dead.
I don't know if you're just horribly misinformed, or a liar, but nearly every single thing in your post is wrong. It's what's called a Gish Gallop. You rattle off so many lies that people look and say "Wow, that guy sure knows his stuff" while the honest people can't refute them all fast enough. But I'll try anyway.
Starting from the quoted section:
1) He didn't reverse on closing Gitmo. The Republicans blocked all funding for the transfer of prisoners elsewhere. He is literally not allowed to spend a single cent on closing the prison. You cannot blame him for that.
2) The use of drones by police departments is a nonissue. These drones aren't carrying weapons -- they're no different from helicopters, except that they're cheaper, which is a good thing.
3) SOPA & PIPA were opposed by Obama. You can't seriously be complaining about his support for something he didn't support. You might as well complain about his support for Al Qaeda.
4) The stimulus funds did not "take over" any industries. Give one example. Just one. Literally, I want you to name a single American business which is now government owned because of the stimulus. Either that, or come back and apologize for lying.
5) TARP was passed by Bush, and didn't take over banks in any case.
6) The health care law does not take over anything. It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. The man is lying to you.
7) New environmental controls? You'll need to be more specific, but I suspect this is every bit as much a lie as the rest of your talking points.
8) Obama didn't make the decision about Boeing's plant. The National Labor Relations Board did. That's their job... to determine when businesses are retaliating against unions and block such maneuvers. The fact that South Carolina is a "red" state was irrelevant. Boeing was retaliating against their unionized workers in Washington state, and that's against the law.
Living in the US doesn't mean that you don't have an axe to grind against the country. There are plenty of people here who'd like to see the whole thing burn down.
If you think that the US is less free than Europe, you have an absurdly idyllic idea of what Europe is like.
Who the fuck cares?
It's a murder. We have hundreds of them every year. We have people get killed over domestic disputes, gang fights, muggings gone bad. We've got crazy parents killing their kids. We've got political crazies killing people they've been told to hate. We've got more murders than we know what to do with.
So why in God's name should we care about this one murder up in Canada? Because it's an "honor" killing? We get those in the US too, and they do get reported on, including the religion of the killer. Even those are barely newsworthy. Sad, yes, but more Americans die in gang violence than to honor killings by, like, a factor of a thousand.
And by the way, it is a fucking lie to say that only Fox reported "that they're muslim". Here's a quote from CNN's coverage: "In taking the stand, [Mohammed] Shafia swore to tell the truth on the Quran and he again invoked the holy book to say Islam does not condone killing people to preserve a family's honor." I suppose it didn't use the word "muslim", but if you've got a guy named Mohammed being sworn in on a Quran and talking about the teachings of Islam, you'd have to be pretty dense not to figure it out. Considering that your whole point seemed to be that the American media self-censors, this lie undermines the very heart of your claim.
Very simple.
Step 1) Shut down NASA and the DoE (and maybe the EPA for good measure)
Step 2) Give the ~$60 billion dollars per year to Lockheed Martin
Step 3) Leave politics to work in the private sector
Step 4) "Work" for Lockheed, earning $1 million+ a year for the rest of your life
The fact that this plan never actually involves us getting into space is incidental. I'm sure you can see what the real goal of the process is.
Both pictures are clearly infringing on Louboutin's trademark on "red". Not a particular shade, or a particular usage. Just, you know, red.
When did the newly elected Egyptian government espouse the destruction of another people? I suspect you're conflating them with the Iranian government or the like. That's unfair.
You are arguing that the Egyptians should have just been content to be ruled by a dictator, rather than try to rule themselves, because you've convinced yourself that they'll fuck it up. That's a very White Man's Burden sort of attitude.
By the standards of the country, the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate, and perhaps more importantly, they were elected. It's better to have an elected government than a dictator, even if that elected government does some bad stuff.
Let's not forget that America passed plenty of terrible laws when it was younger. Still does, in fact, though not to the same extent. The Sedition Act made it illegal to say anything bad about the government. Black people were deemed 3/5ths of a person. No, that doesn't mean they got three fifths of a vote. It means their owners did. They banned sodomy and alcohol. Non-protestants weren't allowed to hold office in many places.
It takes a long time for democratic countries to level out and start running themselves well. But it beats the hell out of being completely at the mercy of a dictator.
It seems like they are dumping corrupt secular dictators, just to prop up theoretically less corrupt, but still abjectly fascist slave masters wielding Sharia law.
I don't see that at all. The Muslim Brotherhood won in the election in Egypt, not to Salafis. They had an election, and they elected one of the moderate parties, by their standards. Maybe you were hoping for them to elect the liberal party, but there's a difference between "not the party I would have voted for" and "abjectly fascist slave masters".
If anyone expects Egypt to be a utopian bastion of democracy within a few years, they're fooling themselves. It never works like that. But they're taking steps in the right direction, and they fought like hell for the right to take those steps. Don't run them down for that.
From an American company? Yes. I also care more about my friends and family than I do about some people living a thousand years from now. From a purely calculating point of view, all people are of equal worth. In practice, no one actually lives their life like that. People just selectively apply that standard when it fits with the conclusion that they want to reach.
An interesting thought, but I don't think Foxconn actually does employ all that significant a percentage of the aforementioned demographics (young, employed, sane, healthy).
China has 422.3 million people between the ages of 15 and 35.
Their employment rate is 4.3%. I couldn't find a breakout by age, so we'll be conservative and assume it's 10% in this demographic, leaving 380 M in the pot.
At that point, even if you assume that half of the Chinese population is either insane or suffering serious illness, you still have 190 M people in the young, healthy, sane, employed demographic. Foxconn would make up less than half a percent of that.
Moral of the story: China has a lot of people.
I hadn't realized you're the same person who posted the initial comment, so please don't think I was singling you out.
However, you ARE misusing statistics. Maybe not intentionally, but you are all the same. You can't just say "this stat is easily available, therefore I'll apply it" while ignoring all of the factors that would clearly run against your conclusion. For example, the median American wage right now is $33k. If Microsoft decided it was going to pay it's engineers $40k, you wouldn't say, "That's a good salary, because it's above what most people make." You have to compare apples to apples.
Even less thought has been put in by the posters that refer back to the story as if suicides only happen at Chinese factories producing iPhones.
I don't think those people are being any less honest than the people who try to brush it off as a normal suicide rate by improperly applying statistics.
This isn't about me. I'm wealthy myself. I have a kickass job that pays six figures, and make a pretty significant return on my investments. By my estimates, I'll be able to retire when I'm 45 (though I'll probably choose not to). This is about the next generation. The people who won't get to have all the advantages Steve Jobs and his kind had, because the country will have been bled dry by then.
By the way, fuck you for dragging in those tired old political talking points. "Taxes are taken at gun point!" "Unions are fascist!" Turn off Rush Limbaugh and open your goddamn eyes. But since you've already decided to reduce the discussion to insult hurling and stereotyping, I'll join you...
The problem with you conservatives is that you only care for yourselves. You can't even comprehend the idea that people might care for another. The idea that I can look at a guy on the streets, and see a human being, not just some cockroach to be (at best) ignored is utterly alien to you. You're fucking sociopaths. Gee, wasn't that fun and productive?
Apple used public resources to get rich. They owe it to the public to pay to keep those resources available. Try to get over your all-consuming sense of greed, and understand that.
Do you think Steve Jobs would have started Apple if he had been born in Kenya? Would the engineers there be able to design great devices if the electricity was only on for four hours a day? What if some warlord rolled through, enslaving, raping, and murdering anyone in their way?
There's a reason you don't see any successful businesses based in Somalia. You need a prosperous, stable nation as a launching point. Companies like Apple are quite happy to take advantage of the great conditions here, but give absolutely nothing back. Those conditions won't be around for the next generation as a result.
So you're saying that Apple should be able to trademark the rounded rectangle? That's stupid. Touchscreen devices, quite obviously, should try to maximize the size of the screen relative to the device. And anything that people must handle regularly shouldn't have sharp corners. The rounded rectangle is simply a case of form following function.
Also, at least one of those photos has been manipulated to make the Samsung phone look more like the iPhone. The Galaxy S and iPhone 3G have different dimensions, including different aspect ratios, yet they appear identical in the photo comparing them. Whoops! Newsflash... if you have to lie to prove your point, you don't have one.