Because if they wanted to do that they've had nearly 20 years to do it. They aren't going to do it. It isn't feasible and their biggest problems aren't at the boot loader, it's the iPad and android devices.
Several things. First, that report was over the media landscape entirely. They identified CNN, ABC, Fox and yes, their own as giving political donations. This is precisely the reason what got Keith Olbermann in trouble in 2010/2011. He made donations to Congressman Grijalva of Arizona to the tune of 2,400 bucks. Thus his suspension, then firing from the network. He was also MSNBC's biggest draw.
The other point is that when talking about MSNBC's biases, you've got to look at life before and after Keith Olbermann.
Before Olbermann, MSNBC had such rightwing luminaries as Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage as part of their on air personalities.
After Keith they still had guys like Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
It wasn't until after Olbermann's success with resonating and pandering to a left wing audience did MSNBC make a leftward swerve in a big way. And Joe Scarborough is STILL there after Olbermann's blow up over 2,400 bucks in campaign contributions.
Or it could be Nokia being ridiculously desperate. Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero. The Nexus 7 isn't competing with the Surface.
Nokia on the other hand, does.
So which is more likely, Nokia is trashing about in an attempt to remain relevant or Microsoft is fighting a secret proxy patent war?
Do you have evidence this is what "big money" wants? Do you have documents from groups like ALEC or the the US Chamber of Commerce showing that this is what they want?
Just blindly throwing out that OMG BOUGHT AND PAID FOR doesn't exactly mean proof. What proof do you have? I need evidence, not innuendo and conspiratorial thinking.
We're talking matters of law here. The Judge needs to weigh ALL evidence regardless of personal biases here. That's how our legal system works.
This isn't disingenuous rationalization we're talking about. This is the foundation for a fair and free legal system. If you really think this isn't working, the alternative is MUCH worse.
I have. It works the other way around. Congressmen stalk and harass the lobbyists for dough. Planet Money did a great piece on it.
This isn't the result of Congressional lobbying. This is the result of actions taken by the Judiciary. Now if you want to accuse the Judge as being paid off, you're REALLY making a HUGE accusation.
You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence? That it didn't go your way? That somehow you know more than the judge or the lawyers in the case?
You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption. This is an inconvenience for two major multinational corporations.
1 - Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present. Under your system, it's more like Judge Judy or The People's Court. Which isn't exactly legally fair if the Judge is biased one way or another.
2 - Agreed, but we CAN change it. It does matter who gets elected to congress.
First off, you have no idea how the buying and selling of senators even happens, do you? Give this a listen. The economics behind campaign contributions are ridiculous. The situation in Congress is the opposite of what you think. Congress critters stalk and seek the money of moneyed interests. Not the other way around.
Elections are tight, redistricting only can get you so far these days. Same with campaign contributions. By forming informed voter blocks you can actually sway elections by forming political action committees and doing the hard work of trying to be a participant in the representative democratic process.
To that end though, RIM, Nokia, HTC, Moto, et al. need to follow Apple's example.
Chasing market share doesn't mean chasing profits. In order for all of these companies to win, the others do not have to lose. Steve Jobs said it back in the 90's about Apple vs. Microsoft, and it's absolutely as true today as it was then. There are a lot of pockets to fill with phones. There's plenty of space for everyone.
Make your phones profitable and the experience not suck. Unfortunately that's a mantra no one seems to want to run with.
Also, Android isn't just second rate, it's third rate because it's shackled to really shitty OEMs and lousy carriers. Google isn't interested in the ownership experience.
They're certainly focused on making Jelly Bean as good as they possibly can, however, I don't think from a philosophical level that Google realizes where their weak points are. Even if they get the UI silky smooth and somehow fix the audio latency problems, the fact that they ship Android with a task manager shows they really don't care about the reality of living with a device that's constrained by battery life.
The fact that the whole Android experience is really disjointed means that Google doesn't seem to care much for how people actually use their phones. From the music player down to the browser. We're 4 years out since Google launched Chrome for the desktop and we're now just getting that design savvy in Android?
Yes, iOS has a lot of glaring weaknesses, but it's the difference between having weak legs and weak arms. Google has weak legs, it can not stand. It is unsustainable.
What kind of scares me about Android is that if Google's Ad sales business goes all pear shaped, then where does this leave Android? With any other mobile OS, the OS was the product. or the OS was driving hardware sales. Android is a advertisement spewing Trojan Horse. So if Google's ad business tanks, Android's not long for this world.
Sure. I've got nothin' to hide. But I do have a lot to be deeply ashamed of.
But that's not my point. My point was that he's arguing from an extremely privileged point of view.
He's saying that he's paranoid that Government or corporate business interests will out his proclivities if they ever catch wind and should he ever cross their path.
It's not good, but it's not horrible either. What's going on isn't Big Brother snooping in on your every little detail.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if they wanted to do that they've had nearly 20 years to do it. They aren't going to do it. It isn't feasible and their biggest problems aren't at the boot loader, it's the iPad and android devices.
That and a phase conjugate tracking system.
Several things. First, that report was over the media landscape entirely. They identified CNN, ABC, Fox and yes, their own as giving political donations. This is precisely the reason what got Keith Olbermann in trouble in 2010/2011. He made donations to Congressman Grijalva of Arizona to the tune of 2,400 bucks. Thus his suspension, then firing from the network. He was also MSNBC's biggest draw.
The other point is that when talking about MSNBC's biases, you've got to look at life before and after Keith Olbermann.
Before Olbermann, MSNBC had such rightwing luminaries as Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage as part of their on air personalities.
After Keith they still had guys like Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.
It wasn't until after Olbermann's success with resonating and pandering to a left wing audience did MSNBC make a leftward swerve in a big way. And Joe Scarborough is STILL there after Olbermann's blow up over 2,400 bucks in campaign contributions.
Wowsers MacTavish.
the goddamned secret service is who you call in these cases
I hope you are not a lawyer. You would be a very bad one.
I'm surprised they didn't slap the iPad on there.
Battery capacity on a 2012 iPad? 11,666
Wasn't Nokia dragging it's feet on subsidization?
Or it could be Nokia being ridiculously desperate. Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero. The Nexus 7 isn't competing with the Surface.
Nokia on the other hand, does.
So which is more likely, Nokia is trashing about in an attempt to remain relevant or Microsoft is fighting a secret proxy patent war?
Judges need to understand the law and it's the litigators who are responsible for educating the judges and juries on cases is simple.
Judges need to know how the law works, not be pre-biased on the case.
I mean, this is pretty simple stuff.
Do you have evidence this is what "big money" wants? Do you have documents from groups like ALEC or the the US Chamber of Commerce showing that this is what they want?
Just blindly throwing out that OMG BOUGHT AND PAID FOR doesn't exactly mean proof. What proof do you have? I need evidence, not innuendo and conspiratorial thinking.
No, because they're making a value judgement with zero perspective from a privileged point of view.
One that happens to be factually wrong.
Common sense is neither common nor sensible.
We're talking matters of law here. The Judge needs to weigh ALL evidence regardless of personal biases here. That's how our legal system works.
This isn't disingenuous rationalization we're talking about. This is the foundation for a fair and free legal system. If you really think this isn't working, the alternative is MUCH worse.
I have. It works the other way around. Congressmen stalk and harass the lobbyists for dough. Planet Money did a great piece on it.
This isn't the result of Congressional lobbying. This is the result of actions taken by the Judiciary. Now if you want to accuse the Judge as being paid off, you're REALLY making a HUGE accusation.
So who paid off who?
You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence? That it didn't go your way? That somehow you know more than the judge or the lawyers in the case?
You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption. This is an inconvenience for two major multinational corporations.
1 - Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present. Under your system, it's more like Judge Judy or The People's Court. Which isn't exactly legally fair if the Judge is biased one way or another.
2 - Agreed, but we CAN change it. It does matter who gets elected to congress.
First off, you have no idea how the buying and selling of senators even happens, do you? Give this a listen. The economics behind campaign contributions are ridiculous. The situation in Congress is the opposite of what you think. Congress critters stalk and seek the money of moneyed interests. Not the other way around.
Elections are tight, redistricting only can get you so far these days. Same with campaign contributions. By forming informed voter blocks you can actually sway elections by forming political action committees and doing the hard work of trying to be a participant in the representative democratic process.
now that Vi and Linux have won the editor/OS wars of the 90's, us geeks have to fight about SOMETHING on the internet.
Hello, Apple fanboy here. :)
To that end though, RIM, Nokia, HTC, Moto, et al. need to follow Apple's example.
Chasing market share doesn't mean chasing profits. In order for all of these companies to win, the others do not have to lose. Steve Jobs said it back in the 90's about Apple vs. Microsoft, and it's absolutely as true today as it was then. There are a lot of pockets to fill with phones. There's plenty of space for everyone.
Make your phones profitable and the experience not suck. Unfortunately that's a mantra no one seems to want to run with.
Also, Android isn't just second rate, it's third rate because it's shackled to really shitty OEMs and lousy carriers. Google isn't interested in the ownership experience.
They're certainly focused on making Jelly Bean as good as they possibly can, however, I don't think from a philosophical level that Google realizes where their weak points are. Even if they get the UI silky smooth and somehow fix the audio latency problems, the fact that they ship Android with a task manager shows they really don't care about the reality of living with a device that's constrained by battery life.
The fact that the whole Android experience is really disjointed means that Google doesn't seem to care much for how people actually use their phones. From the music player down to the browser. We're 4 years out since Google launched Chrome for the desktop and we're now just getting that design savvy in Android?
Yes, iOS has a lot of glaring weaknesses, but it's the difference between having weak legs and weak arms. Google has weak legs, it can not stand. It is unsustainable.
What kind of scares me about Android is that if Google's Ad sales business goes all pear shaped, then where does this leave Android? With any other mobile OS, the OS was the product. or the OS was driving hardware sales. Android is a advertisement spewing Trojan Horse. So if Google's ad business tanks, Android's not long for this world.
Maybe because sweden isn't out to rendition him or extradite him? That maybe the "indictment" was either wrong or misunderstood?
If they wanted him gone or made an example of they'd have just shot him. Or gone through the UK.
Not on trumped up charges.
Seriously. How do you even work out the logic on this?
No.
It stands to reason, if the US wanted him, they'd have gotten him in the middle of the night.
Besides, he's not that important.
So you have innuendo instead of facts? Suspicions rather than evidence?
Jesus christ you're a looney.
Because that's totally with out precedent.
If you're right, then why hasn't the WND been occupied by marines and it's servers taken to the FBI for forensic analysis?
Sure. I've got nothin' to hide. But I do have a lot to be deeply ashamed of.
But that's not my point. My point was that he's arguing from an extremely privileged point of view.
He's saying that he's paranoid that Government or corporate business interests will out his proclivities if they ever catch wind and should he ever cross their path.
It's not good, but it's not horrible either. What's going on isn't Big Brother snooping in on your every little detail.
So basically you have no answer and the lack of evidence is more evidence!? CONSPIRACY!
So you're deeply ashamed of who you are and don't have courage or the conviction to own up to your life?
For a second there I thought you were some sort of dissident in a third world nation or corporate whistleblower.
Has anyone actually been jailed or snooped on for talking smack about Obama?