Dumb assumption #1: Most companies do not have to "pass on savings" (I think you mean extra expense) for sales that would have never happened in the first place. It might hurt Amazon's margins (fuck them - as a book seller, I can tell you that they rape third party sellers with a similar commission to Apple's), but certainly not digital publishers.
Dumb assumption #2: That Apple users are hipsters. 1999 called and wants your dumb statement back. Apple is no longer a niche product maker. They've sold 100's of millions of devices. I guess half the country are now "hipsters?" WTH is a hipster anyway, nerdster?
Dumb assumption #3: That a stockholder defending Apple taking a cut is an Apple product user. Other than a recent iPhone I got as a gift, I am not.
Typical emotional lib response. How about you cite some facts that show how citizens carrying legally is some danger to themselves and others? You don't because you can't, and you completely ignored the link I provided to Professor Kleck's research. BTW, he's a card-carrying ACLU lib, not some NRA guy.
The fact is that states which have passed "shall issue" CCW laws have seen their crime rates drop, and there has been no evidence of people misusing the guns. The permit revocations are so small it's a rounding error, and usually related to something other than the gun itself (being convicted of an unrelated crime.).
So go ahead, and CITE some reality or STFU. "Googling" is not research. Of course the media plays up the relatively small amount of gun accidents - they are anti-gun, and involve a "shooting" bias (99% of self-defense uses of firearms do not involve an actual shooting, so of course they don't show up in Google).
Again, go read Professor Kleck's research and learn about the millions of self-defense uses of firearms a year that never involve an actual shooting, and therefore do not get any media attention.
And if you want to be left alone, don't post dumb things on/. And get a gun.
"Just where the fuck do you live that it's acceptable that someone can't leave a party alone?"
Nobody said that, nice strawman. There a lot of unacceptable realities in the world. One of them is that there are sick, violent farks in the world who need a needle full of cyanide. Unfortunately, they must first commit their horrors before they get said needle. Is it "acceptable" that I have to lock my front door? Is it "acceptable" that so many people get murdered, that every large city must have dedicated homicide investigators? Sometimes reality is hard to accept.
"All more likely to be used against the woman than by her on a rapist. Actually, all more likely to be used against an innocent man than against a rapist - women are remarkably unlikely to get raped, while men are comparatively likely to get assaulted."
There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support this nonsense, which is endlessly repeated by the anti-gunners. Justice Dept stats show resisting violent crime leads to better outcomes for victims, and Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State has done numerous studies that show millions of self defense uses of firearms per year, and only a tiny fraction of gun users ever have their guns "taken away." You think you could pull a pistol out of my hand? Good luck with that.
Men are typically much larger and stronger than women. There is a reason there are weight classes in boxing and MMA. Besides, this was in a car, so Judo and TKD are sure out. Even grapplers can be overpowered if they are outweighed 2-1. Only an elite-level female jiu-jitsu practitioner is going to take out some 225-lbs guy in a car, and how many women have time to spend 5 days a week for 5 years in a dojo? And I'm sorry, but a petite 110lb woman is never going to take out an Ahnold-sized attacker. You've just been watching too many movies, brotha.
It would be much more effective for women to carry guns, the true equalizer. Stabbing weapons are good as well. And, of course, for them not to get so drunk they are out of control.
Oh, and death penalty for rapists would be nice, too.
Yes, I read the thread, and your snotty reply. I was dead serious: Apple has roughly 130 million credit cards on file, one click away. If the po' wittle publishers want access to that incredible customer base, they should pay for the privilege. Why should Apple give away such a database? Because/.'ers think it's mean?
And if they don't like it, they can market on the Zune.
Especially when Apple has 130 million credit cards on file, one click away? Why should publishers get this for free? As an Apple stockholder, I say, "charge those freeloaders rent!"
"you forgot one: price. that shoe has yet to drop, but when it drops and all those Android manufacturers start drop their prices
to compete against each other that is going to force Apple to either compete on price, or be relegate to being a bit player. And
we've seen this movie before so we know it won't be the former."
Apple buys flash and screens in such enormous amounts (in the billions at a time), they can dictate their price and everyone else is left scrambling for parts and can't compete with the iPad on price and actually make money. And how did competitors do against the iPod making cheap knock-offs the last 10 years?
"Okay, but why not just subscribe directly from the publisher then"
1) Apple already has iPhone user's credit cards on iTunes, so it's easy as one click. Why go to the trouble of re-entering your credit card on an outside Website? Even try that on an iPhone? 2) Apple, unlike publishers and "What's Privacy?" Google, will stubbornly protect users' data and will not give it to publishers (who are fuming over it) unless subscribers affirmatively opt-in.
...the publishing industry's favorite little gem, data mining. Apple won't give it up, and the publishers are fuming because they want to spam subscribers. I wonder what "do no evil" Google will be doing with their subscriber personal info?
Absolutely agree. Apple does it much better than the other big companies. Evidence? Look at their MASSIVE stock price premium as compared to quarterly or annual earnings per share. Investors aren't stupid. They know Apple has positioned themselves well.
What does this even mean? Stock price is irrelevant - P/E is what matters. Apple makes more in a quarter than Google does in a year - and sports 70% annual growth - yet AAPL (20) has a P/E ratio about 80% of GOOG's (24). Don't even get me started on Netflix (81) or Amazon (74).
Apple is horrendously undervalued at its current stock price and revenue growth.
where exactly in the US Constitution is says the US is to surrender its sovereignty to the United Nations.
The US created and paid for the development of the Internet protocols and initial infrastructure, the topic of this article. I'd suggest that those without Internet would be better served launching their own political and industrial revolutions, and paying for their own Internet, rather than depending on charity.
Again, genius, Obama's debt numbers are much higher than Bush's. The deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. The $800B Waste of Money Debt Stimulus assured that.
The election was wipeout for Dems, the worst since FDR, and you can thank the cut-the-budget and no-more-bailouts Tea Party. Only someone "incapable of rational thought" can look at 54 Dem incumbents losing seats and only 2 Republicans losing seats (one of who voted for Obamacare), or exit polling, and say it was merely anti-incumbent sentiment. Bailouts and the arrogance of ramming Obamacare down our throats killed Nancy.
And you're so brilliant, tell me how GWB (as opposed to the Fed and Fannie and Freddie and a nation full of greedy people) caused the housing meltdown. Only a partisan hack could blame Bush for that.
What an utter, complete lie. Total book-cooking of the CBO methodology. Those first-run numbers counted 10 years of taxes, but only 6 years of benefits, and in broad daylight, ignored the "doctor fix" for Medicare. Also counted on Medicare cuts that will never happen. Of course, give the CBO real numbers, and it runs huge deficits. So yeah, refute ever single point I made and then tell me who is confused. And today the CBO says Obamacare will cost 800,000 jobs.
Talk about confused, a new entitlement will cover 30 million new people and save money! LOL! If Medicare - which cost like 10 times what they originally said it would (and only covers 70% of seniors' bills) - it will be a bankrupting boondoggle.
"Obama spent all the money? Nope. Bush spent all the money. "
Two years into record deficits this is just a childish statement. Obama's deficits are much higher than Bush's.
"but most people would like the government to create jobs during a recession rather than cut them, don't you think?"
No, not based on the most recent election. They want smaller government and less public employees. The government can only "create" public sector jobs, which steal from the private sector, i.e., tax dollars, and hurt growth, or through taxing for "stimulus," i.e., sedative. The idea that government central planning can allocate private resources and create jobs better than the private sector is ludicrous. It's like trying give yourself a transfusion from the left arm to the right arm, whilst spilling half the blood on the floor in the process.
If government got the hell out of the way, the economy would grow just fine. Smart people, i.e., those who aren't Keynesians, would not like the government to "create" jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Dumb assumption #1: Most companies do not have to "pass on savings" (I think you mean extra expense) for sales that would have never happened in the first place. It might hurt Amazon's margins (fuck them - as a book seller, I can tell you that they rape third party sellers with a similar commission to Apple's), but certainly not digital publishers.
Dumb assumption #2: That Apple users are hipsters. 1999 called and wants your dumb statement back. Apple is no longer a niche product maker. They've sold 100's of millions of devices. I guess half the country are now "hipsters?" WTH is a hipster anyway, nerdster?
Dumb assumption #3: That a stockholder defending Apple taking a cut is an Apple product user. Other than a recent iPhone I got as a gift, I am not.
So keep on keepin' on being dumb!
So many on Slashdot claim to be science brains, yet just talk out of their asses instead of citing research.
Professor Gary Kleck's findings on defensive gun uses.
Typical emotional lib response. How about you cite some facts that show how citizens carrying legally is some danger to themselves and others? You don't because you can't, and you completely ignored the link I provided to Professor Kleck's research. BTW, he's a card-carrying ACLU lib, not some NRA guy.
/. And get a gun.
The fact is that states which have passed "shall issue" CCW laws have seen their crime rates drop, and there has been no evidence of people misusing the guns. The permit revocations are so small it's a rounding error, and usually related to something other than the gun itself (being convicted of an unrelated crime.).
So go ahead, and CITE some reality or STFU. "Googling" is not research. Of course the media plays up the relatively small amount of gun accidents - they are anti-gun, and involve a "shooting" bias (99% of self-defense uses of firearms do not involve an actual shooting, so of course they don't show up in Google).
Again, go read Professor Kleck's research and learn about the millions of self-defense uses of firearms a year that never involve an actual shooting, and therefore do not get any media attention.
And if you want to be left alone, don't post dumb things on
"Just where the fuck do you live that it's acceptable that someone can't leave a party alone?"
Nobody said that, nice strawman. There a lot of unacceptable realities in the world. One of them is that there are sick, violent farks in the world who need a needle full of cyanide. Unfortunately, they must first commit their horrors before they get said needle. Is it "acceptable" that I have to lock my front door? Is it "acceptable" that so many people get murdered, that every large city must have dedicated homicide investigators? Sometimes reality is hard to accept.
"All more likely to be used against the woman than by her on a rapist. Actually, all more likely to be used against an innocent man than against a rapist - women are remarkably unlikely to get raped, while men are comparatively likely to get assaulted."
There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support this nonsense, which is endlessly repeated by the anti-gunners. Justice Dept stats show resisting violent crime leads to better outcomes for victims, and Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State has done numerous studies that show millions of self defense uses of firearms per year, and only a tiny fraction of gun users ever have their guns "taken away." You think you could pull a pistol out of my hand? Good luck with that.
Men are typically much larger and stronger than women. There is a reason there are weight classes in boxing and MMA. Besides, this was in a car, so Judo and TKD are sure out. Even grapplers can be overpowered if they are outweighed 2-1. Only an elite-level female jiu-jitsu practitioner is going to take out some 225-lbs guy in a car, and how many women have time to spend 5 days a week for 5 years in a dojo? And I'm sorry, but a petite 110lb woman is never going to take out an Ahnold-sized attacker. You've just been watching too many movies, brotha.
It would be much more effective for women to carry guns, the true equalizer. Stabbing weapons are good as well. And, of course, for them not to get so drunk they are out of control.
Oh, and death penalty for rapists would be nice, too.
Some people actually need real-time info and access. If the markets are open and I don't have access, I'll have a meltdown.
Yes, I read the thread, and your snotty reply. I was dead serious: Apple has roughly 130 million credit cards on file, one click away. If the po' wittle publishers want access to that incredible customer base, they should pay for the privilege. Why should Apple give away such a database? Because /.'ers think it's mean?
And if they don't like it, they can market on the Zune.
3) Not participating in Apple's one-click 130 million credit card database.
That's a privilege you have to pay for, my friend.
Especially when Apple has 130 million credit cards on file, one click away? Why should publishers get this for free? As an Apple stockholder, I say, "charge those freeloaders rent!"
Is everyone here a freaking socialist?
About making money for shareholders? You know, Apple's legal duty?
"you forgot one: price. that shoe has yet to drop, but when it drops and all those Android manufacturers start drop their prices to compete against each other that is going to force Apple to either compete on price, or be relegate to being a bit player. And we've seen this movie before so we know it won't be the former."
Apple buys flash and screens in such enormous amounts (in the billions at a time), they can dictate their price and everyone else is left scrambling for parts and can't compete with the iPad on price and actually make money. And how did competitors do against the iPod making cheap knock-offs the last 10 years?
Wishing doesn't make it true.
Apple doesn't "own the market." To be a monopolist, a company must control 60-70% of the relevant market. iOS isn't even in the 30's.
EU MMV.
How much is 100M credit cards on file, one click away, worth? Should that be free? As a stockholder, I say no.
for stockholders like myself!
"Okay, but why not just subscribe directly from the publisher then"
1) Apple already has iPhone user's credit cards on iTunes, so it's easy as one click. Why go to the trouble of re-entering your credit card on an outside Website? Even try that on an iPhone? 2) Apple, unlike publishers and "What's Privacy?" Google, will stubbornly protect users' data and will not give it to publishers (who are fuming over it) unless subscribers affirmatively opt-in.
...the publishing industry's favorite little gem, data mining. Apple won't give it up, and the publishers are fuming because they want to spam subscribers. I wonder what "do no evil" Google will be doing with their subscriber personal info?
As a stockholder, I'll be able to buy a Gulfstream.
Absolutely agree. Apple does it much better than the other big companies. Evidence? Look at their MASSIVE stock price premium as compared to quarterly or annual earnings per share. Investors aren't stupid. They know Apple has positioned themselves well.
What does this even mean? Stock price is irrelevant - P/E is what matters. Apple makes more in a quarter than Google does in a year - and sports 70% annual growth - yet AAPL (20) has a P/E ratio about 80% of GOOG's (24). Don't even get me started on Netflix (81) or Amazon (74).
Apple is horrendously undervalued at its current stock price and revenue growth.
Too bad you knew you had to do it anon, lest the "ostrasized geek" culture mod you down.
where exactly in the US Constitution is says the US is to surrender its sovereignty to the United Nations.
The US created and paid for the development of the Internet protocols and initial infrastructure, the topic of this article. I'd suggest that those without Internet would be better served launching their own political and industrial revolutions, and paying for their own Internet, rather than depending on charity.
Teach a man to fish, blah blah blah...
Again, genius, Obama's debt numbers are much higher than Bush's. The deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. The $800B Waste of Money Debt Stimulus assured that.
The election was wipeout for Dems, the worst since FDR, and you can thank the cut-the-budget and no-more-bailouts Tea Party. Only someone "incapable of rational thought" can look at 54 Dem incumbents losing seats and only 2 Republicans losing seats (one of who voted for Obamacare), or exit polling, and say it was merely anti-incumbent sentiment. Bailouts and the arrogance of ramming Obamacare down our throats killed Nancy.
And you're so brilliant, tell me how GWB (as opposed to the Fed and Fannie and Freddie and a nation full of greedy people) caused the housing meltdown. Only a partisan hack could blame Bush for that.
What an utter, complete lie. Total book-cooking of the CBO methodology. Those first-run numbers counted 10 years of taxes, but only 6 years of benefits, and in broad daylight, ignored the "doctor fix" for Medicare. Also counted on Medicare cuts that will never happen. Of course, give the CBO real numbers, and it runs huge deficits. So yeah, refute ever single point I made and then tell me who is confused. And today the CBO says Obamacare will cost 800,000 jobs.
Talk about confused, a new entitlement will cover 30 million new people and save money! LOL! If Medicare - which cost like 10 times what they originally said it would (and only covers 70% of seniors' bills) - it will be a bankrupting boondoggle.
"Obama spent all the money? Nope. Bush spent all the money. "
Two years into record deficits this is just a childish statement. Obama's deficits are much higher than Bush's.
"but most people would like the government to create jobs during a recession rather than cut them, don't you think?"
No, not based on the most recent election. They want smaller government and less public employees. The government can only "create" public sector jobs, which steal from the private sector, i.e., tax dollars, and hurt growth, or through taxing for "stimulus," i.e., sedative. The idea that government central planning can allocate private resources and create jobs better than the private sector is ludicrous. It's like trying give yourself a transfusion from the left arm to the right arm, whilst spilling half the blood on the floor in the process.
If government got the hell out of the way, the economy would grow just fine. Smart people, i.e., those who aren't Keynesians, would not like the government to "create" jobs.
AKA, taxpayers. Let's just be sure my basic human property rights are respected.
Is a "human right"? iPhones for everyone?
Where are all of these "human rights" listed, and who gets to update the list?
Let's separate the "hey, it would be nice to have XXX" from "human rights," the latter being things only constitutions can guarantee.