They had a two-state solution already and they fucked it up.
It's way more complex than that. The proposed two-sate solution was acceptable to Israeli/Jews and the West, but not to Arabs/Palestinians.
The plan proposed for a Jewish state with only 55% Jews, and an Arab/Palestinian state with something like 99% Arabs/Palestinians. The plan would have been more fair with less land to the Jewish state, but with a higher percentage of Jews. Since the Jews represented only 33% of the population, and they received 56% of the land (and more valuable land), the Arab reaction was to be expected. More efforts should have been put in finding a compromise acceptable to both parties.
"Justice" is not a concept of international politics, stop using it.
Except that Israel was not created by a war, but by international "justice" aka UN resolution to split British Palestine into two countries.
Therefore the international community, especially those who voted for that plan, have a responsibility in the current situation.
But the Hamas is not Palestine. I am sure there are some radical groups in Israel who promised to never recognize Palestine. In fact the Israeli government never recognized Palestine so their position is not that far from the one of the Hamas.
Palestine recognized Israel in 1993. It's now Israel's turn to recognize Palestine.
Let's make it really simple. The Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza can have their autonomy when they grant Israel theirs. That seems to be a very basic first step that the Arabs find completely impossible.
When they grant Israel theirs? Israel already have it.
The 13" Macbook Air is also 27% larger than the Surface Pro 3 (in area) and yet many people compared the two. That's not that much considering we are talking about an area. You only need about 14% increase in each dimension to get a 30% larger area.
Save for the OS, there would be a lot of cross-shopping between these two. They are specs comparable, high quality ultrabooks.
The Surface Pro 3 (without keyboard) is 1.76 pounds, so this isn't unheard of.
The problem is it weighs 32% more (2.6 lbs vs 2 lbs) and is 33% bigger (324mm x 226mm vs. 280mm x 196mm). It also does not have USB-C. It is slimmer though, at 12.1 mm!
So, it depends on what one means by similar specs. Over 30% heavier and bulkier in two dimensions is not similar for my needs.
It lacks USB-C but has a dedicated charging port, 3 USB 3.0 ports (as in available even when charging, what a revolution!!!) and a dedicated HDMI port, again, which is not shared with any USB or charging port and directly usable without a dongle. It's well worth the extra size and weight for most people.
I have subscribed to this kind of service in Europe: you will go over the limit and it will cost you dearly when you do. You're not reading the fine print (e.g. "vers mobiles").
I've had many cell phones with less than 120 minutes of talk time. I know what it is. I know how not to go over the limit. I have a separate home phone and work phone. I would still want that plan. There is nothing comparable in the US or Canada that I know of.
By both actually. France regulates the number of providers. They wanted a 4th one so they had one.
So does the US. That's why we have four providers. What's your point?
The US has 4 providers because mostly of market rules. France dictated that there would be a 4th provider. My point was that I was answering your question. You asked wheter Free mobile was the result of regulation or deregulation.
I don't know what you mean by "my country". Do you mean the US?
No, Canada.
Would you "love to have" the taxes, regulations, and obligations that go along with living in France? Because the whole thing comes as a package. You cannot have US-style taxes, salaries, and economic growth while at the same time having French-style subsidized prices and services.
Why not? Cell phone prices doesn't have much to do with taxes. It's not because of subsidies that you can have a cell phone plan for 2 euros/month in France and not in the US or Canada.
The catch is that you automatically switch to very expensive per MB/minute plans, so if you use it at all, you end up paying an arm and a leg. The EU 2 plan by free.fr is a gimmick, not a realistic plan.
How is that not reallistic? As long as you don't go over the limit, you are fine. I'd love to have such a cheap plan in my country. 120 minutes is more than what a few of my relatives have. Free SMS and 50 MB are just bonus.
If you are a big user, just take the 20 euro plan. I fail to see how this is a gimmick. It's about 1/4 of the price of my country.
And again, what is the point you're actually trying to make? Was free.fr a service created by regulation or by deregulation?
By both actually. France regulates the number of providers. They wanted a 4th one so they had one. They are forcing an incumbant (orange) to offer roaming while Free is building its network. The minimum coverage area (mesured in % of the population covered) is also regulated.
You mean this? http://mobile.free.fr/ I think your French is a little rusty, and those plans end up being a ton more expensive when all is said and done.
What's the catch? Can't we get a mobile plan for only 2 euros/month?
In any case, in the US, Ting and Family Mobile are pretty good deals.
That's not that cheap. Start at $15 for 100 minutes, 100 text and 100 MB.
Electromagnetic spectrum is managed at the federal level in the US. It's managed by individual countries in the EU. That's the main reason why operators are localized to specific countries in the EU, but are not localized to specific states in the US.
Ok what US MVNO offers 120 minutes of talk time (to France, the USA and 99 other destinations), unlimited SMS and 50 MB data for 2 euros/month? Free offers it in France. For 20 euros, they offer unlimited talk and 20GB data. There might be cheaper alternatives in some other countries, I just picked the cheap European operator I know.
You could use the same argument within a single country. The average person only needs coverage in his home city, right? Why would roaming across France be free when you live in Paris?
Because the actual cost of roaming within a country is so low that it doesn't make much sense to account for it.
The actual cost of roaming between countries is a lot higher, so it does make sense to account for it and charge for it.
The only reason why roaming within a single country is low is because you usually don't roam as the operator will setup antennas to cover the whole country. If you are to roam on another operator, there is no reason why it should be more expensive just because it's in another country.
It is interesting to see how the EU and USA mobile markets evolved differently, which I attribute in part to the different cultural identity in the two places. US Companies see themselevs as US companies and so it was natural for them to dvelop a US network acrosss the entire country. The EU companies were more likly to seethemselves as French or German as were regulators in those countries who would protrct them from foriegn competition. As aresultyou have a very localized network rather than an EU wide network.
It's just as localized in the US. The US just happens to be a larger country. But go to Canada or Mexico and you will pay exorbitant roaming fees to.
You could use the same argument within a single country. The average person only needs coverage in his home city, right? Why would roaming across France be free when you live in Paris?
But when you think about it, what would stop a provider with a single antenna in say, Andorra or Vatican, to offer unlimited plans at Euro 5/month and free ride on providers with real network coverage?
But I said blackberry marketshare down while Windows Phone is growing.
And that was confusing, since both have their market share shrinking. Why would you compare Blackberry's market share to WP absolute sales? Either compare both market shares or both sales.
That growth is from 4Q2013 to 4Q2014. On the whole year they grew by only 4.2%. And the market grew much faster, which is why their market share is down.
Yes and no.
There is no way Microsoft will stay in the market with only 3% of the market (yes, share) in the long term. Their Windows Phone division is currently not profitable enough and will never be except if they can get a significant share of the market. With 3%, their platform will continue to be avoided by developers. In 2011, analysts projected that Microsoft would be at arround 20% by 2015. And that's why Microsoft invested in Windows Phone. They beleived they had a chance to win. The problem with 3% is that the competition will have much larger economies of scale and will drive you down to 0.
Slashdot Mirror
They had a two-state solution already and they fucked it up.
It's way more complex than that. The proposed two-sate solution was acceptable to Israeli/Jews and the West, but not to Arabs/Palestinians. The plan proposed for a Jewish state with only 55% Jews, and an Arab/Palestinian state with something like 99% Arabs/Palestinians. The plan would have been more fair with less land to the Jewish state, but with a higher percentage of Jews. Since the Jews represented only 33% of the population, and they received 56% of the land (and more valuable land), the Arab reaction was to be expected. More efforts should have been put in finding a compromise acceptable to both parties.
"Justice" is not a concept of international politics, stop using it.
Except that Israel was not created by a war, but by international "justice" aka UN resolution to split British Palestine into two countries. Therefore the international community, especially those who voted for that plan, have a responsibility in the current situation.
But the Hamas is not Palestine. I am sure there are some radical groups in Israel who promised to never recognize Palestine. In fact the Israeli government never recognized Palestine so their position is not that far from the one of the Hamas.
Palestine recognized Israel in 1993. It's now Israel's turn to recognize Palestine.
Let's make it really simple. The Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza can have their autonomy when they grant Israel theirs. That seems to be a very basic first step that the Arabs find completely impossible.
When they grant Israel theirs? Israel already have it.
The 13" Macbook Air is also 27% larger than the Surface Pro 3 (in area) and yet many people compared the two. That's not that much considering we are talking about an area. You only need about 14% increase in each dimension to get a 30% larger area.
Save for the OS, there would be a lot of cross-shopping between these two. They are specs comparable, high quality ultrabooks.
The Surface Pro 3 (without keyboard) is 1.76 pounds, so this isn't unheard of.
I didn't buy an Apple TV because it does not have an easy to install Plex Server.
Wouldn't you need a Plex client instead? What would you want to serve from an Apple TV?
The problem is it weighs 32% more (2.6 lbs vs 2 lbs) and is 33% bigger (324mm x 226mm vs. 280mm x 196mm). It also does not have USB-C. It is slimmer though, at 12.1 mm!
So, it depends on what one means by similar specs. Over 30% heavier and bulkier in two dimensions is not similar for my needs.
It lacks USB-C but has a dedicated charging port, 3 USB 3.0 ports (as in available even when charging, what a revolution!!!) and a dedicated HDMI port, again, which is not shared with any USB or charging port and directly usable without a dongle. It's well worth the extra size and weight for most people.
I have subscribed to this kind of service in Europe: you will go over the limit and it will cost you dearly when you do. You're not reading the fine print (e.g. "vers mobiles").
I've had many cell phones with less than 120 minutes of talk time. I know what it is. I know how not to go over the limit. I have a separate home phone and work phone. I would still want that plan. There is nothing comparable in the US or Canada that I know of.
So does the US. That's why we have four providers. What's your point?
The US has 4 providers because mostly of market rules. France dictated that there would be a 4th provider. My point was that I was answering your question. You asked wheter Free mobile was the result of regulation or deregulation.
I don't know what you mean by "my country". Do you mean the US?
No, Canada.
Would you "love to have" the taxes, regulations, and obligations that go along with living in France? Because the whole thing comes as a package. You cannot have US-style taxes, salaries, and economic growth while at the same time having French-style subsidized prices and services.
Why not? Cell phone prices doesn't have much to do with taxes. It's not because of subsidies that you can have a cell phone plan for 2 euros/month in France and not in the US or Canada.
The catch is that you automatically switch to very expensive per MB/minute plans, so if you use it at all, you end up paying an arm and a leg. The EU 2 plan by free.fr is a gimmick, not a realistic plan.
How is that not reallistic? As long as you don't go over the limit, you are fine. I'd love to have such a cheap plan in my country. 120 minutes is more than what a few of my relatives have. Free SMS and 50 MB are just bonus. If you are a big user, just take the 20 euro plan. I fail to see how this is a gimmick. It's about 1/4 of the price of my country.
And again, what is the point you're actually trying to make? Was free.fr a service created by regulation or by deregulation?
By both actually. France regulates the number of providers. They wanted a 4th one so they had one. They are forcing an incumbant (orange) to offer roaming while Free is building its network. The minimum coverage area (mesured in % of the population covered) is also regulated.
You mean this? http://mobile.free.fr/ I think your French is a little rusty, and those plans end up being a ton more expensive when all is said and done.
What's the catch? Can't we get a mobile plan for only 2 euros/month?
In any case, in the US, Ting and Family Mobile are pretty good deals.
That's not that cheap. Start at $15 for 100 minutes, 100 text and 100 MB.
Electromagnetic spectrum is managed at the federal level in the US. It's managed by individual countries in the EU. That's the main reason why operators are localized to specific countries in the EU, but are not localized to specific states in the US.
Ok what US MVNO offers 120 minutes of talk time (to France, the USA and 99 other destinations), unlimited SMS and 50 MB data for 2 euros/month? Free offers it in France. For 20 euros, they offer unlimited talk and 20GB data. There might be cheaper alternatives in some other countries, I just picked the cheap European operator I know.
Correct. So, market consolidation and increased concentration lowers costs.
Well you could argue that while there are no roaming charges within the US, prices are much higher than in the EU.
Because the actual cost of roaming within a country is so low that it doesn't make much sense to account for it.
The actual cost of roaming between countries is a lot higher, so it does make sense to account for it and charge for it.
The only reason why roaming within a single country is low is because you usually don't roam as the operator will setup antennas to cover the whole country. If you are to roam on another operator, there is no reason why it should be more expensive just because it's in another country.
It is interesting to see how the EU and USA mobile markets evolved differently, which I attribute in part to the different cultural identity in the two places. US Companies see themselevs as US companies and so it was natural for them to dvelop a US network acrosss the entire country. The EU companies were more likly to seethemselves as French or German as were regulators in those countries who would protrct them from foriegn competition. As aresultyou have a very localized network rather than an EU wide network.
It's just as localized in the US. The US just happens to be a larger country. But go to Canada or Mexico and you will pay exorbitant roaming fees to.
Yes, and when costs got lower, it wasn't worth accounting for them anymore and they disappeared. All without government regulation.
They wouldn't have disappeared if the market was still dominated by regional companies.
You could use the same argument within a single country. The average person only needs coverage in his home city, right? Why would roaming across France be free when you live in Paris?
But when you think about it, what would stop a provider with a single antenna in say, Andorra or Vatican, to offer unlimited plans at Euro 5/month and free ride on providers with real network coverage?
Not in Canada. At least I can't find an article specific about forgetting a password.
Except that forgetting a password has never been a crime. Murder is.
What about the "I don't remember my password" defense?
But I said blackberry marketshare down while Windows Phone is growing.
And that was confusing, since both have their market share shrinking. Why would you compare Blackberry's market share to WP absolute sales? Either compare both market shares or both sales.
That growth is from 4Q2013 to 4Q2014. On the whole year they grew by only 4.2%. And the market grew much faster, which is why their market share is down.
Yes and no. There is no way Microsoft will stay in the market with only 3% of the market (yes, share) in the long term. Their Windows Phone division is currently not profitable enough and will never be except if they can get a significant share of the market. With 3%, their platform will continue to be avoided by developers. In 2011, analysts projected that Microsoft would be at arround 20% by 2015. And that's why Microsoft invested in Windows Phone. They beleived they had a chance to win. The problem with 3% is that the competition will have much larger economies of scale and will drive you down to 0.