American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.
My vote would be Gates was more ruthless. He absorbed and/or destroyed more small businesses than I could count. He lied in federal court. He used a monopoly to negatively manipulate markets. He would lose billions of dollars on a product just to undercut competition.
By contrast Jobs was an asshole and difficult to work with. This is an easy vote for me.
the next worst decision they made was to play ball with the entertainment industry when they demanded more money
What makes you think they just roll over? They don't. If you notice things expiring from instant it's because contracts are ending and not getting renewed at higher rates. One content owner (Starz, maybe?) asked for a 10x increase and Netflix quickly declined. Netflix is negotiating well and walking a fine line.
No single person caused the real estate bubble and terrible investments. That's completely absurd and irrational.
Kucinich will get nothing pushed through that anyone will pay attention to, same with Sanders.
Your original claim was no one ever came up with any alternative plans. So now you're agreeing others do have plans, just plans you disagree with and will never pass Congress? So, in other words, no better or worse than Paul.
You clearly don't read enough, or simply ignore what you disagree with. Frank, Kucinich, Sanders (independent), and others have alternatives. Each has merits.
Better policy would be to not invest in News Corp at all.
News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives
Then why are they, or anyone else seeking a successful investment, owing part of the company? If no one wanted the stock it would devalue itself and the rest of the owners, including the Murdochs, would lose money.
The split and renaming is clearly for the potential sell-off. I think they're getting ahead of themselves, but splitting the brands now also means completely separate negotiations and contracts with content owners.
I agree, except for your postage cost estimate. Like any large mail user they have a special contract with the postal service. They pay less per envelope than we do.
To me, such a complete split and a rebranding mean they're looking to sell the DVD business. Otherwise there was no reason to frustrate the users by delinking their ratings, recommendations, accounts, history, etc. Technically they can run on separate servers and share information between them, but they're not even bothering.
I think it's the opposite. Netflix is clearly putting everything down on streaming since that's what kept the household name. By showing content owners that the streaming subscriber base is much smaller than the DVD base, they'll be able to negotiate better deals for streaming content. Theoretically each service will have costs and prices that better reflect whose using them.
It's the opposite. eBay has been trying to get into the classified ads business for years. During the same years referenced in TFA, they tried to buy out Craigslist's biggest competitor in Europe. When the owner refused eBay came out with their own clone.
You own the phone. You can do whatever you want with it, including replace the software or jailbreak it.
You do not own the software. You are licensed to use it. So either use it as is or replace it.
I have a regular iPhone (not jailbroken) and I can install my own custom apps on it. I don't see how Apple is preventing you from doing what you want with what they sold you.
Google search, gmail, twitter, and facebook could all function perfectly fine without JS. Of course the UI wouldn't be as elegant, but JS is not at all a requirement for their functionality.
A small community might be willing to start the trip knowing they'll never make it in their lifetime. Through reproduction the community would eventually make it there, even though their ancestors are long gone.
Social security was NEVER intended to be a retirement fund. It was never advertised as a retirement fund. Now its being used as a retirement fund. This in itself will bankrupt our country. Period.
False. SS was meant to pay out exactly what it took in. The intent was zero affect on the budget. Clinton and others played some numbers games with it, but the intent was balanced. It does not need to be cut at all.
By simply ending the wars and terminating ridiculous no-bid military contracts the entire budget would easily be balanced. You need to look at the actual numbers instead of blaming entitlements, which are part of what make us a modern civilization worth living in. In fact, you could also help balance the budget with single-payer health care, but that's also a social program so you're probably against that, too.
I think you've got it backwards. It couldn't be an economic decision until the deal was actually done. Had they downgraded before it would have been purely political as no final decisions had been made.
I'm very much in favor of privacy and anonymity on the internet. But social networks, by definition, give up information which easily identify who you are. Just your connections can be enough. But more likely you're going to post or connect to certain interests which give up more information.
My view is simply that if you want true anonymity online, you will never have it using a social network.
The point of social networks is to share. That's naturally counterproductive to privacy. At the very least I must know something about who I'm sharing information with or I wouldn't be there.
The only real privacy on a social network could be within your circle of "friends", as opposed to having a public profile. But within that circle absolute privacy would be pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.
My vote would be Gates was more ruthless. He absorbed and/or destroyed more small businesses than I could count. He lied in federal court. He used a monopoly to negatively manipulate markets. He would lose billions of dollars on a product just to undercut competition.
By contrast Jobs was an asshole and difficult to work with. This is an easy vote for me.
This might be the most ignorant comment I've read on the internet this week. It's wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.
the next worst decision they made was to play ball with the entertainment industry when they demanded more money
What makes you think they just roll over? They don't. If you notice things expiring from instant it's because contracts are ending and not getting renewed at higher rates. One content owner (Starz, maybe?) asked for a 10x increase and Netflix quickly declined. Netflix is negotiating well and walking a fine line.
Frank and Sanders are demonstrated black hearts and liars.
Examples? That's news to me. Sanders, in particular, has been extremely consistent. They're both very open in stating their opinions.
No single person caused the real estate bubble and terrible investments. That's completely absurd and irrational.
Kucinich will get nothing pushed through that anyone will pay attention to, same with Sanders.
Your original claim was no one ever came up with any alternative plans. So now you're agreeing others do have plans, just plans you disagree with and will never pass Congress? So, in other words, no better or worse than Paul.
"I have what I need, so everyone else can go fend for themselves."
but NEVER can come up with plans or their own
You clearly don't read enough, or simply ignore what you disagree with. Frank, Kucinich, Sanders (independent), and others have alternatives. Each has merits.
Better policy would be to not invest in News Corp at all.
News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives
Then why are they, or anyone else seeking a successful investment, owing part of the company? If no one wanted the stock it would devalue itself and the rest of the owners, including the Murdochs, would lose money.
They estimate they are losing 4% of their subscriptions. They are easily making that money up from the price increases.
I'm not saying it was a smart move, but it's going to make the company a lot more money.
The split and renaming is clearly for the potential sell-off. I think they're getting ahead of themselves, but splitting the brands now also means completely separate negotiations and contracts with content owners.
I agree, except for your postage cost estimate. Like any large mail user they have a special contract with the postal service. They pay less per envelope than we do.
To me, such a complete split and a rebranding mean they're looking to sell the DVD business. Otherwise there was no reason to frustrate the users by delinking their ratings, recommendations, accounts, history, etc. Technically they can run on separate servers and share information between them, but they're not even bothering.
The newly named service includes video games, so "flix" would be a bad choice.
I think it's the opposite. Netflix is clearly putting everything down on streaming since that's what kept the household name. By showing content owners that the streaming subscriber base is much smaller than the DVD base, they'll be able to negotiate better deals for streaming content. Theoretically each service will have costs and prices that better reflect whose using them.
It's the opposite. eBay has been trying to get into the classified ads business for years. During the same years referenced in TFA, they tried to buy out Craigslist's biggest competitor in Europe. When the owner refused eBay came out with their own clone.
"Forced"? That means it's not an option. No one is forcing anyone to develop for a particular platform.
You own the phone. You can do whatever you want with it, including replace the software or jailbreak it.
You do not own the software. You are licensed to use it. So either use it as is or replace it.
I have a regular iPhone (not jailbroken) and I can install my own custom apps on it. I don't see how Apple is preventing you from doing what you want with what they sold you.
Google search, gmail, twitter, and facebook could all function perfectly fine without JS. Of course the UI wouldn't be as elegant, but JS is not at all a requirement for their functionality.
A small community might be willing to start the trip knowing they'll never make it in their lifetime. Through reproduction the community would eventually make it there, even though their ancestors are long gone.
Would the pony freeze or explode when exposed to space?
Social security was NEVER intended to be a retirement fund. It was never advertised as a retirement fund. Now its being used as a retirement fund. This in itself will bankrupt our country. Period.
False. SS was meant to pay out exactly what it took in. The intent was zero affect on the budget. Clinton and others played some numbers games with it, but the intent was balanced. It does not need to be cut at all.
By simply ending the wars and terminating ridiculous no-bid military contracts the entire budget would easily be balanced. You need to look at the actual numbers instead of blaming entitlements, which are part of what make us a modern civilization worth living in. In fact, you could also help balance the budget with single-payer health care, but that's also a social program so you're probably against that, too.
I think you've got it backwards. It couldn't be an economic decision until the deal was actually done. Had they downgraded before it would have been purely political as no final decisions had been made.
I'm very much in favor of privacy and anonymity on the internet. But social networks, by definition, give up information which easily identify who you are. Just your connections can be enough. But more likely you're going to post or connect to certain interests which give up more information.
My view is simply that if you want true anonymity online, you will never have it using a social network.
The point of social networks is to share. That's naturally counterproductive to privacy. At the very least I must know something about who I'm sharing information with or I wouldn't be there.
The only real privacy on a social network could be within your circle of "friends", as opposed to having a public profile. But within that circle absolute privacy would be pointless.