As for myself, it's not that I believe that science cannot address the issue (though sometimes I do believe that is the case), but that I don't trust the experimentation method or the impetus behind the experiment. Far too often the "science" in question has an agenda behind it - political, business, social or whatever.
For example, one can find scientific studies which indicate that high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy. There are also studies which will indicate that there is nothing at all wrong with high fructose corn syrup. Both studies (supposedly) use scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. Therefore, ultimately, a person is left to his own beliefs to decide which study (if any) is correct.
Your examples are applications of science, not science itself. Any application of science should be seen in context. "Real" science has no political agenda. At least peer review is there to shoot it down.
A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.
So can a car, most cleaners that you use in your household, various drugs you buy at the pharmacy (over the counter), a baseball bat, a golf club, a nail gun, a car battery, anti-freeze, a kitchen knife set, and so on and so on and so on. Just because something can be used to kill a person doesn't mean it will be used to kill a person. Just sayin'
Stupidest argument ever. The handgun is easily concealable, requires little to no skill to use, requires no physical exertion, and can be used at range. Ever wonder why so many murders are gun related, and not anti-freeze related? No, neither have I.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
I think what he is pointing out is that most of the people who want the CEO's to be directly responsible for everything are the same people who think they can set a cap on what private citizens can earn.
That would be nice, but yeah, it's never going to happen. When the ultra rich become too annoying, it's easier to just put them up against a wall and shoot them.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?
Silly example. However if that CEO were in risk management meetings that discussed the possibility of an oil spill, and the costs to prepare for it, and decided to not spend money on being prepared for such an event in order to save money and boost his bonus, then he could be held accountable. However it would be hard to prove anything from records, which I'm pretty sure have been destroyed by this point in case of subpoena.
With Balmer possibly appearing at the next Apple event, why does this remind me of 1939 Poland, when Hitler and Stalin split it right down the middle. Microsoft owns business, Apple owns the home, and they share the monopoly.
RTFL. The distributor is the one responsible for complying with the GPL. Or rather, the entity that conveys the binary is responsible, ie Apple.
So if Best Buy sold you a disk with GPL breaking code, you can sue Best Buy for distribution? When Best Buy doesn't write the code, or even know what's in the code? I think not. This is why there's no law suit, because there's no grounds for one. Apple will simply pull the App and be done with it.
And I'd like to see anyone who thinks that getting "the shit raped out of him" is acceptable punishment locked up and out of the society that I live in. These are the scary people that I'd like off the streets, thank you.
So here's one for you: Why can't you fight that misinformation before the patient even steps foot in the exam room? Why don't doctors create peer-reviewed, well-written websites to counter all of the confusion and pseudo-science currently available online? Won't patients gravitate to the more prestigious sites, especially if doctors point them there?
But I don't think that doctors want patients to ever try to self-diagnose, so they won't ever put this information online. Whether or not the doctors have the patient's best interests in mind, this creates a rift between the two parties, and does little to advance patient-centered health care.
Wow, paranoia. I mean, I think that MDs are generally condescending to their patients, but this goes above and beyond.
There is no way that the medical community can change wiki to alleviate people self misdiagnosing. Each subject would end up a book of best practices, possible test results, sample cases, complicated jargon, etc. Wiki does what it does well, give a brief description of the subject in language that the general user can understand. The complaint is not wiki misinformation, it is the case that each issue is much more complicated than the average user wants to get into. Hence, medical school.
That being said, there are tons of bad doctors out there, and it is always best to be skeptical of your doctor, and go out and do your own research. My psychiatrist was always interested to discuss what I read on line. I'd recommend her to anyone. My wife went through three bad shrinks until she found one who would listen. YMMV.
But suddenly when it's Apple it's all ok. Why the hell?
Repeat after me. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly.
What information he had and what was going on at the time.
And what we now know was going on in the Japanese dictatorship at the time, which completely contradicts the notion that Japan was ready to surrender. They were not. Not even after the first bomb. After the second bomb, leadership was divided on the issue of surrender. What pushed Hirohito over the edge, was Stalin's threat of invasion from the north being added to the US threat of invasion.
State it like it's fact, and it is, I guess. But there is room for argument.
The Japanese leadership, which was in flux, especially with the ousting of Tojo and the "Control Faction," had been discussing surrender long before the dropping of the bombs. The invasion of Okinawa really sealed the fate of the country. True the propaganda talked about arming every last citizen with a pitchfork to fight off the invasion, but that was just that, propaganda. Tokyo was already firebombed into oblivion. B-29s were flying overhead without any resistance. The war was over, and the Japanese leaders knew it.
What was happening behind the scenes was pretty chaotic. There was at least one and probably more coups planned and staged as various military officers tried to take power. Sure there were some fanatics who wanted to fight to the last man, but they were luckily few by that point. The seppuku blades had gotten a lot of use.
Surrender did not happen in one shot. Diplomats from different sides were already talking in various foreign embassies. These sorts of prenegotiations usually happen through third party diplomats that both sides see as neutral. The sticking point as usual in WWII was the unconditional part of the surrender that the allies insisted on.
Russia was sitting on the border of Manchuria refusing to move. Stalin and Churchill in particular enjoyed making life difficult for each other. Relations were already breaking down between the US/British and USSR halves of the allies. Churchill in particular was already talking about Stalin as the real enemy now that Hitler was gone and Germany defeated. Roosevelt was more trusting of Stalin, but at this point he was dead, and Truman had taken office. Truman did not trust Stalin, and when he looked at the post war world, realized that Stalin was the biggest threat to America and Europe, not Japan. Russian tanks had rolled into many Eastern European capitals with a heavy hand.
Truman had 3 atomic bombs (I know, we say 2, but we probably lost the third to a japanese submarine on its secret delivery to Iwo Jima), and wanted to use them. Yes, they would help push Japan to have a propaganda excuse to finally sign the surrender, but more importantly, they made a big statement to Stalin. As to allowing the emperor to live. That seems to go against the unconditional part of the surrender. The reason was that the US wanted Japan built back up as quickly as possible as a buffer against Stalin (just like his eastern european "allies"), and it helped keep the stability in post war Japan.
So did we drop the bombs to end the war with Japan, or to start a cold war with the USSR? The answer is yes to both. And anyone who argues exclusively one side or the other is dramatically oversimplifying the situation.
A Christian foundation is laughable? How so? One of the prime leaders of the revolution was Samuel Adams, a christian preacher. The writings of George Washington contain frequent references to "God" and "our Creator". Thomas Jefferson, as president, signed his documents: "on this date 180x, in the year of our lord, Jesus Christ". He even created his own bible called the Jesus Bible which focused on quoting Jesus of Nazareth.
Sure, they believed in a God, with a capital G, as in they were mostly freemasons, and their usual view of god is very different from the right wing baptist literalist. Yes, a few do overlap, or at least pay lip service to the baptists, but for the most part, when they talk about god, especially god the creator, they are talking about the "great architect" of free masonry, who inspires greatness through gnosis. They use the imagery of the bible, but they use it allegorically and metaphorically, not literally. Remember GW? He swore his oath of office on a bible from a masonic temple, not from a church.
In answer to your title, because for over fifty years, the high school curricula in most states has been systematically gutted of anything that could possibly be useful to a graduate looking for a job of any sort.
But that's the definition of a trade school, not a college. In no way shape or form should a college's goal be to prepare you for a job. It should enhance your knowledge and life. If you can use things that you learned in college in your future careers, all the better.
The Apple fanboys hate that paragraph (and will mod it down to "Troll" in about 30 minutes). But that's a clear statement of Apple's "walled garden" approach.
That's a statement about the Mac, not about the iPhone/iPad. I think Apple has done and is still doing an admirable job with the Mac, especially in giving back to the open source community. This has no bearing on their other line of products, which are not designed to be general use computers. And please, stop with the confrontational statements. I know it get's you hate based kharma, but please show some decorum.
Let me state that again. It's a game machine. It's not a mature server platform. When you buy game machines you cannot expect server level support. I really don't see what the issue is. If people really thought that a secondary feature of a game machine, that is, the ability to install and run your own OS, makes the PS3 a server platform, then they are delusional.
How exactly is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation connected to Microsoft? The largest transparently-operated private foundation in the world doesn't have a lot in common with Microsoft Corp. In fact, there's only one thing I can think of that they do have in common.
All hail the privileged robber baron who now shares a few pennies of his ill gotten gains to promote good publicity. And don't notice what the other hand is doing behind his back. Doesn't anyone read history books any more?
Or how about Adobe who prices their software for stealing. That is, no average user can afford $1000 for a decent Photoshop package, so everyone pirates it. Then when a business needs a graphics package, they pony up the money for a copy because it's the package everyone knows and uses. Let's say 10 people use each copy that was paid for, therefore the real cost is $100 per copy, which is much more reasonable.
this report could help their case in upcoming antitrust discussions.
Or just as easily hurt it. As the report shows a big part of the sales was on Verizon network, which is a market Apple does not exist on. A large portion of those sales "might" have been for Apple's product had it be available on the Verizon network.
Why is everyone obsessed with a couple percent in sales numbers. How much profit does Apple make per phone sold with its exclusive deal with AT&T? A lot more than they would make if selling to all carriers. I'm sure Apple is quite happy with its numbers.
Most of those keys are used rarely at best, so why are you carrying them around with you? Are you so neurotic that must have every key that you might possibly some day need on your person at all times? Right now I have the front door key and my two bike keys on me. The rest are safe at home, where they belong.
So, Apple, Adobe: Sell your shit and STFU. Regardless of how much you pretend that standards, and the whole industry revolves around you, it doesn't.
You do realize that standards are just a consensus of the the majority of the 800 lb gorillas, usually against a smaller group of 800 lb gorillas who are pushing their own standard? Standards committees are not filled with benevolent open source developers. They consist of representatives from the major corporations, all jockying for advantage over the others.
You come up with some fair points, I'm not so sure they're relevant though.
In a short space of time they have achieved what's approaching a mobile application monopoly, and have come up with a load of very restrictive policies to make it difficult for developers to target multiple platforms, so in this way restricted compiled apps are far more anti-competitive than open spec web apps.
No they haven't. They have over 90% of the iPhone market, but not the smart phone market. Nor does this action in any way harm the other smart phone vendors, or leverage their popularity to strong arm vendors and users in any other market.
There is no way that anything here even remotely resembles anti-trust.
The iPhone / Apple devtools tying is somewhat reminiscent of the car-makers / car-parts antitrust investigations, which happened even though no carmaker actually held a monopoly in the car market.
But this is not an accusation of collusion by all phone vendors to make a higher profit, which would match your car analogy. A better example would be an Antitrust investigation because Ford decides to support only Goodyear of tires on their car. Antitrust? No.
So there's above reproach, husband of but one wife, temperate, self controlled, good reputation with outsiders, etc.
So practicing polygamists/adulterers/fornicators/pedophiles/homosexuals do not meet that standard. Nor do drunkards.
It's a shame that those "standards" have never really been followed. I DID grow up Catholic. Baptism, communion, confirmation. I was even an alter boy. (And no I was never abused.)
Anyway, everyone knew that a large percentage of priests were gay, but it was never talked about. Instead, if a young boy preferred to play with dolls instead of toy guns, then the relatives would say "He's destined for the priesthood." No joke, fact.
I also went to Catholic high school, and one of the priests was regularly drunk when he taught class, and one was more bipolar and would only be drunk on occasion. At least two priests were outwardly gay (non-practicing of course). One, the principal of all people, was defrocked for having multiple affairs with underage students (female by the way).
There is nothing particularly "holy" about the Catholic community. It has its problems just like any other.
What the hell are you talking about? On Lala, you could pay 10 cents per song to stream it as much as you want, or $.99-1.29 to own it outright. And that was not sustainable? They simply offered more options than Apple, they didn't give songs away. Where are you getting your information... ?
Because iTunes is designed to help sell more iPods, and iPods make money. iTunes is not in and of itself profitable. There's no way that Lala could have been profitable. iTunes exists to sell songs to play on your iPod. Lala did not. What's so hard to understand?
Slashdot Mirror
As for myself, it's not that I believe that science cannot address the issue (though sometimes I do believe that is the case), but that I don't trust the experimentation method or the impetus behind the experiment. Far too often the "science" in question has an agenda behind it - political, business, social or whatever.
For example, one can find scientific studies which indicate that high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy. There are also studies which will indicate that there is nothing at all wrong with high fructose corn syrup. Both studies (supposedly) use scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. Therefore, ultimately, a person is left to his own beliefs to decide which study (if any) is correct.
Your examples are applications of science, not science itself. Any application of science should be seen in context. "Real" science has no political agenda. At least peer review is there to shoot it down.
No one is going to upgrade their OS just because there is a new browser from Microsoft.
But that's what they are counting on. There's no money in providing a free browser upgrade for XP users. Recommendation: Firefox.
A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.
So can a car, most cleaners that you use in your household, various drugs you buy at the pharmacy (over the counter), a baseball bat, a golf club, a nail gun, a car battery, anti-freeze, a kitchen knife set, and so on and so on and so on. Just because something can be used to kill a person doesn't mean it will be used to kill a person. Just sayin'
Stupidest argument ever. The handgun is easily concealable, requires little to no skill to use, requires no physical exertion, and can be used at range. Ever wonder why so many murders are gun related, and not anti-freeze related? No, neither have I.
I think what he is pointing out is that most of the people who want the CEO's to be directly responsible for everything are the same people who think they can set a cap on what private citizens can earn.
That would be nice, but yeah, it's never going to happen. When the ultra rich become too annoying, it's easier to just put them up against a wall and shoot them.
I mean, what if that BP truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and kills a family of 4? That's on me, right?
Silly example. However if that CEO were in risk management meetings that discussed the possibility of an oil spill, and the costs to prepare for it, and decided to not spend money on being prepared for such an event in order to save money and boost his bonus, then he could be held accountable. However it would be hard to prove anything from records, which I'm pretty sure have been destroyed by this point in case of subpoena.
With Balmer possibly appearing at the next Apple event, why does this remind me of 1939 Poland, when Hitler and Stalin split it right down the middle. Microsoft owns business, Apple owns the home, and they share the monopoly.
RTFL. The distributor is the one responsible for complying with the GPL. Or rather, the entity that conveys the binary is responsible, ie Apple.
So if Best Buy sold you a disk with GPL breaking code, you can sue Best Buy for distribution? When Best Buy doesn't write the code, or even know what's in the code? I think not. This is why there's no law suit, because there's no grounds for one. Apple will simply pull the App and be done with it.
And don't mod me down, asperges made me do it
And I'd like to see anyone who thinks that getting "the shit raped out of him" is acceptable punishment locked up and out of the society that I live in. These are the scary people that I'd like off the streets, thank you.
So here's one for you: Why can't you fight that misinformation before the patient even steps foot in the exam room? Why don't doctors create peer-reviewed, well-written websites to counter all of the confusion and pseudo-science currently available online? Won't patients gravitate to the more prestigious sites, especially if doctors point them there?
But I don't think that doctors want patients to ever try to self-diagnose, so they won't ever put this information online. Whether or not the doctors have the patient's best interests in mind, this creates a rift between the two parties, and does little to advance patient-centered health care.
Wow, paranoia. I mean, I think that MDs are generally condescending to their patients, but this goes above and beyond.
There is no way that the medical community can change wiki to alleviate people self misdiagnosing. Each subject would end up a book of best practices, possible test results, sample cases, complicated jargon, etc. Wiki does what it does well, give a brief description of the subject in language that the general user can understand. The complaint is not wiki misinformation, it is the case that each issue is much more complicated than the average user wants to get into. Hence, medical school.
That being said, there are tons of bad doctors out there, and it is always best to be skeptical of your doctor, and go out and do your own research. My psychiatrist was always interested to discuss what I read on line. I'd recommend her to anyone. My wife went through three bad shrinks until she found one who would listen. YMMV.
But suddenly when it's Apple it's all ok. Why the hell?
Repeat after me. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly. Apple iPhone is not a monopoly.
What information he had and what was going on at the time.
And what we now know was going on in the Japanese dictatorship at the time, which completely contradicts the notion that Japan was ready to surrender. They were not. Not even after the first bomb. After the second bomb, leadership was divided on the issue of surrender. What pushed Hirohito over the edge, was Stalin's threat of invasion from the north being added to the US threat of invasion.
State it like it's fact, and it is, I guess. But there is room for argument.
The Japanese leadership, which was in flux, especially with the ousting of Tojo and the "Control Faction," had been discussing surrender long before the dropping of the bombs. The invasion of Okinawa really sealed the fate of the country. True the propaganda talked about arming every last citizen with a pitchfork to fight off the invasion, but that was just that, propaganda. Tokyo was already firebombed into oblivion. B-29s were flying overhead without any resistance. The war was over, and the Japanese leaders knew it.
What was happening behind the scenes was pretty chaotic. There was at least one and probably more coups planned and staged as various military officers tried to take power. Sure there were some fanatics who wanted to fight to the last man, but they were luckily few by that point. The seppuku blades had gotten a lot of use.
Surrender did not happen in one shot. Diplomats from different sides were already talking in various foreign embassies. These sorts of prenegotiations usually happen through third party diplomats that both sides see as neutral. The sticking point as usual in WWII was the unconditional part of the surrender that the allies insisted on.
Russia was sitting on the border of Manchuria refusing to move. Stalin and Churchill in particular enjoyed making life difficult for each other. Relations were already breaking down between the US/British and USSR halves of the allies. Churchill in particular was already talking about Stalin as the real enemy now that Hitler was gone and Germany defeated. Roosevelt was more trusting of Stalin, but at this point he was dead, and Truman had taken office. Truman did not trust Stalin, and when he looked at the post war world, realized that Stalin was the biggest threat to America and Europe, not Japan. Russian tanks had rolled into many Eastern European capitals with a heavy hand.
Truman had 3 atomic bombs (I know, we say 2, but we probably lost the third to a japanese submarine on its secret delivery to Iwo Jima), and wanted to use them. Yes, they would help push Japan to have a propaganda excuse to finally sign the surrender, but more importantly, they made a big statement to Stalin. As to allowing the emperor to live. That seems to go against the unconditional part of the surrender. The reason was that the US wanted Japan built back up as quickly as possible as a buffer against Stalin (just like his eastern european "allies"), and it helped keep the stability in post war Japan.
So did we drop the bombs to end the war with Japan, or to start a cold war with the USSR? The answer is yes to both. And anyone who argues exclusively one side or the other is dramatically oversimplifying the situation.
A Christian foundation is laughable? How so? One of the prime leaders of the revolution was Samuel Adams, a christian preacher. The writings of George Washington contain frequent references to "God" and "our Creator". Thomas Jefferson, as president, signed his documents: "on this date 180x, in the year of our lord, Jesus Christ". He even created his own bible called the Jesus Bible which focused on quoting Jesus of Nazareth.
Sure, they believed in a God, with a capital G, as in they were mostly freemasons, and their usual view of god is very different from the right wing baptist literalist. Yes, a few do overlap, or at least pay lip service to the baptists, but for the most part, when they talk about god, especially god the creator, they are talking about the "great architect" of free masonry, who inspires greatness through gnosis. They use the imagery of the bible, but they use it allegorically and metaphorically, not literally. Remember GW? He swore his oath of office on a bible from a masonic temple, not from a church.
In answer to your title, because for over fifty years, the high school curricula in most states has been systematically gutted of anything that could possibly be useful to a graduate looking for a job of any sort.
But that's the definition of a trade school, not a college. In no way shape or form should a college's goal be to prepare you for a job. It should enhance your knowledge and life. If you can use things that you learned in college in your future careers, all the better.
The Apple fanboys hate that paragraph (and will mod it down to "Troll" in about 30 minutes). But that's a clear statement of Apple's "walled garden" approach.
That's a statement about the Mac, not about the iPhone/iPad. I think Apple has done and is still doing an admirable job with the Mac, especially in giving back to the open source community. This has no bearing on their other line of products, which are not designed to be general use computers. And please, stop with the confrontational statements. I know it get's you hate based kharma, but please show some decorum.
Let me state that again. It's a game machine. It's not a mature server platform. When you buy game machines you cannot expect server level support. I really don't see what the issue is. If people really thought that a secondary feature of a game machine, that is, the ability to install and run your own OS, makes the PS3 a server platform, then they are delusional.
How exactly is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation connected to Microsoft? The largest transparently-operated private foundation in the world doesn't have a lot in common with Microsoft Corp. In fact, there's only one thing I can think of that they do have in common.
All hail the privileged robber baron who now shares a few pennies of his ill gotten gains to promote good publicity. And don't notice what the other hand is doing behind his back. Doesn't anyone read history books any more?
Or how about Adobe who prices their software for stealing. That is, no average user can afford $1000 for a decent Photoshop package, so everyone pirates it. Then when a business needs a graphics package, they pony up the money for a copy because it's the package everyone knows and uses. Let's say 10 people use each copy that was paid for, therefore the real cost is $100 per copy, which is much more reasonable.
this report could help their case in upcoming antitrust discussions.
Or just as easily hurt it. As the report shows a big part of the sales was on Verizon network, which is a market Apple does not exist on. A large portion of those sales "might" have been for Apple's product had it be available on the Verizon network.
Why is everyone obsessed with a couple percent in sales numbers. How much profit does Apple make per phone sold with its exclusive deal with AT&T? A lot more than they would make if selling to all carriers. I'm sure Apple is quite happy with its numbers.
Most of those keys are used rarely at best, so why are you carrying them around with you? Are you so neurotic that must have every key that you might possibly some day need on your person at all times? Right now I have the front door key and my two bike keys on me. The rest are safe at home, where they belong.
First off, IANAL but, In the US, we have anti-trust laws designed to stop companies from doing this kind of stuff.
No, the laws are to stop monopolies from doing this sort of thing. Apple has no monopoly in any market, therefore no anti-trust laws apply.
So, Apple, Adobe: Sell your shit and STFU. Regardless of how much you pretend that standards, and the whole industry revolves around you, it doesn't.
You do realize that standards are just a consensus of the the majority of the 800 lb gorillas, usually against a smaller group of 800 lb gorillas who are pushing their own standard? Standards committees are not filled with benevolent open source developers. They consist of representatives from the major corporations, all jockying for advantage over the others.
You come up with some fair points, I'm not so sure they're relevant though.
No they haven't. They have over 90% of the iPhone market, but not the smart phone market. Nor does this action in any way harm the other smart phone vendors, or leverage their popularity to strong arm vendors and users in any other market.
There is no way that anything here even remotely resembles anti-trust.
The iPhone / Apple devtools tying is somewhat reminiscent of the car-makers / car-parts antitrust investigations, which happened even though no carmaker actually held a monopoly in the car market.
But this is not an accusation of collusion by all phone vendors to make a higher profit, which would match your car analogy. A better example would be an Antitrust investigation because Ford decides to support only Goodyear of tires on their car. Antitrust? No.
So there's above reproach, husband of but one wife, temperate, self controlled, good reputation with outsiders, etc.
So practicing polygamists/adulterers/fornicators/pedophiles/homosexuals do not meet that standard. Nor do drunkards.
It's a shame that those "standards" have never really been followed. I DID grow up Catholic. Baptism, communion, confirmation. I was even an alter boy. (And no I was never abused.)
Anyway, everyone knew that a large percentage of priests were gay, but it was never talked about. Instead, if a young boy preferred to play with dolls instead of toy guns, then the relatives would say "He's destined for the priesthood." No joke, fact.
I also went to Catholic high school, and one of the priests was regularly drunk when he taught class, and one was more bipolar and would only be drunk on occasion. At least two priests were outwardly gay (non-practicing of course). One, the principal of all people, was defrocked for having multiple affairs with underage students (female by the way).
There is nothing particularly "holy" about the Catholic community. It has its problems just like any other.
What the hell are you talking about? On Lala, you could pay 10 cents per song to stream it as much as you want, or $.99-1.29 to own it outright. And that was not sustainable? They simply offered more options than Apple, they didn't give songs away. Where are you getting your information ... ?
Because iTunes is designed to help sell more iPods, and iPods make money. iTunes is not in and of itself profitable. There's no way that Lala could have been profitable. iTunes exists to sell songs to play on your iPod. Lala did not. What's so hard to understand?