Apple is as bad as any of the other manufacturers. The iPhone 3G was superceded by the international release of the 3GS in July/August 2009, and the last software update was November 2010. For people who bought a 3G just before the 3GS was released, that's 15 months before updates were cut off. At least with Android you can install Cyanogen to get the latest software.
What you fail to point out is that the 3G was introduced 06/09/08, which means it continued to receive software upgrades for 2 and a half years. Has any Android manufacturer provided two and half years of OS upgrades? I didn't think so.
For the past thirty years we have held up the image of the put upon rich person who would love to invest in the US but can't because of our terrible tax burden. So the tax code has been modified to take the burden off the most wealthy [our top tax rate used to be 50% now it is 35%]. We did this because we were lied to that the wealthy would let the rest of the economy have more. This has not happened.
It sometimes still amazes me when I meet liberals who don't understand that many people who "make $1M" actually don't keep most of it even before taxes because they run sole proprietorships or partnerships. It's a testament to the fact that we need a "you must know this much to have a right to be heard" sign next to the soap box.
I'm all for giving men like Buffet and Gates precisely what they want. They want more taxes, have at it. Instead of starting the curve ramping up in the low millions, let's have it really start hitting home in the tens of millions and then go nuts when someone takes home over $100M. That way we know we aren't hitting small businesses.
Since most of the truly wealthy seem to have a left-wing streak, I as a conservative, see no reason to not give them what they want good and hard so long as we can spare small businesses.
Bull-fucking-shit. The only truly wealthy that have a left-wing streak are the few vocal ones with actual hearts in their chests and not robotic machinery. Generally, the CEOs of all the major corporations are conservative greedy fucks, spending billions in lobbying money to reduce their taxes.
Also, if any sole proprietorship or partnership is NETTING over $1M (you are taxed on NET, not GROSS), then they should be taxed as wealthy, because they fucking ARE wealthy. Your claim of "you must know this much to have a right to heard" is actually "you must agree with me this much to have a right to be heard." And that me friend, is fascism.
It is class warfare, and it's about damn time the lower and middle classes got a weapon. The upper class has been waging class warfare for decades (er, actually since time immemorial, but I digress).
You don't understand "freedom of speech." It only protects you from government censorship. No one has to facilitate what you have to say. It is their store and their policy rules. Go play somewhere else if it bothers you.
You do not understand freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only means that the government won't abridge your speech. No one is required to facilitate your speech.
Imagine how better America would be if the government were run by scientists and engineers, and nutso religion-mongers were not allowed to hold office, much less vote?
You know, I much rather prefer this sentiment expressed in the original German.
By solar heat, I mean the mirrors and chimney (air movement) desert style. You can cover huge swaths of the Sahara or other very large, mostly uninhabitable deserts with mirrors and a huge chimney to generate electricity.
And the taxes paid vs. subsidies actually are related, in a way. You see, Exxon pays income taxes in each country where it does business. Subsidies are strictly for drilling in the US, to encourage companies to do more business in the country. That not only results in more tax revenue from that company, it's also somewhat of a jobs program, since oil companies will drill in whatever country it makes the most economic sense, so various countries offer subsidies to encourage companies to develop their domestic resources, which requires local labor.
Still, it all goes back to what TYPE of energy to subsidize and tax - the less-polluting solar or the more-polluting oil. I believe the answer is obvious.
You just inserted your point of view. The point made by the AC (that Exxon Mobil is the single biggest source of tax revenue for the US Government [which by the way is NOT true]) remains irrelevant to topic of tax-subsidized energy.
No, I mean pollute LESS, like I said. Oil is a very nasty business in both extraction AND use. At least solar is only messy in producing the panels, not in use (and really not messy at all when you use solar HEATING, not photovoltaic). And to say it pollutes DIFFERENTLY, is to imply they are equal pollution-wise. Finally, I hope your Chernobyl comment was sarcasm, as the only thing beneficial to the flora and fauna was that it kept people away.
The trouble is that corp wellfare only works in this country alone. Unless you're suggesting that we also subsidies energy in other countries too.
The best argument I've ever heard against subsidies for Green technology was from a VC in Silicon Valley and the interview was in Scientific American a few months ago - and I can't find the damn article.
In a nutshell, a green energy source must be economically feasible without subsidies because the places where they have the greatest chance of being adopted are in developing countries - countries that cannot afford to subsidize energy. The same goes for in developed countries - for political reasons.
The argument that with enough subsides eventually it will become economically feasible doesn't cut it and it's not true. The subsidies have a habit of never going away - see Oil Industry.
Make a "green" energy source economically feasibly without subsidies and it will take the World by storm - there will be no need for laws to force people to use it or tax incentives or any other political trickery.
A superior technology will win and has always won.
Yeah, but if we're going to subsidize energy, how about energy that pollutes less (solar, not oil)
The great thing about Fry's is that you can tell which products suck shit. There will be fifty boxes with bright labels on them assuring you that they have been fully inspected by Fry's employees and work great like the unopened boxes!
I notice there was no thought given to the discharge direction. You wouldn't want to send all the clippings into the next path to be mowed. otherwise it will build up and build up.
Yup. My strategy while using my Cub Cadet rider (side discharge) around the house is completely different than the one for my pull-behind brush-hog (rear discharge) attached to my New Holland that I use for the other 4 acres.
Truly, drinking a beer on a riding mower is virtually pointless. I find that the vibration turns the beer flat almost instantly, especially in the cupholder.
No, the problem is that Amazon tells developers publicly that they will get 20% even on free deals in order to draw them in, tells the users that too, and then secretly sends them emails saying they will earn nothing, *and* Amazon controls their price for a few days after the offer, *and* Amazon takes 80% of sales for a few days after the offer - outrageous terms, which they hope the devs will accept because they have already put time and money into the store and are desperate for exposure. Having read this, I wouldn't go near the Amazon store - they sound like groupon.
Apple's app store is looking pretty damn fantastic right about now.
They're doing this because exploration and production is currently very profitable while refining and marketing is have trouble with shrinking margins due to the price of crude, increased regulation, etc. They're getting smaller not to hide profits but to dump operating costs.
Correction: they are doing this to get another round of bonuses for executives. Bonuses when the merge; bonuses when the break up. Rinse and repeat.
100 billion in profits on 1 trillion in sales means you have 10% margin out of that 90% is overhead. And you are making 1% profit. Only billion dollar companies can live with that. Even Dell makes 15%, and Apple makes 30%.
Record profits only have meaning when you think like a small minded idiot.
But Dell and Apple are taking billions in tax subsidies to prop up CEO bonuses.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell no! It's my fucking iPad. Get your own.
Apple is as bad as any of the other manufacturers. The iPhone 3G was superceded by the international release of the 3GS in July/August 2009, and the last software update was November 2010. For people who bought a 3G just before the 3GS was released, that's 15 months before updates were cut off. At least with Android you can install Cyanogen to get the latest software.
What you fail to point out is that the 3G was introduced 06/09/08, which means it continued to receive software upgrades for 2 and a half years. Has any Android manufacturer provided two and half years of OS upgrades? I didn't think so.
For the past thirty years we have held up the image of the put upon rich person who would love to invest in the US but can't because of our terrible tax burden. So the tax code has been modified to take the burden off the most wealthy [our top tax rate used to be 50% now it is 35%]. We did this because we were lied to that the wealthy would let the rest of the economy have more. This has not happened.
There, fixed that for you.
It sometimes still amazes me when I meet liberals who don't understand that many people who "make $1M" actually don't keep most of it even before taxes because they run sole proprietorships or partnerships. It's a testament to the fact that we need a "you must know this much to have a right to be heard" sign next to the soap box.
I'm all for giving men like Buffet and Gates precisely what they want. They want more taxes, have at it. Instead of starting the curve ramping up in the low millions, let's have it really start hitting home in the tens of millions and then go nuts when someone takes home over $100M. That way we know we aren't hitting small businesses.
Since most of the truly wealthy seem to have a left-wing streak, I as a conservative, see no reason to not give them what they want good and hard so long as we can spare small businesses.
Bull-fucking-shit. The only truly wealthy that have a left-wing streak are the few vocal ones with actual hearts in their chests and not robotic machinery. Generally, the CEOs of all the major corporations are conservative greedy fucks, spending billions in lobbying money to reduce their taxes. Also, if any sole proprietorship or partnership is NETTING over $1M (you are taxed on NET, not GROSS), then they should be taxed as wealthy, because they fucking ARE wealthy. Your claim of "you must know this much to have a right to heard" is actually "you must agree with me this much to have a right to be heard." And that me friend, is fascism.
It is class warfare, and it's about damn time the lower and middle classes got a weapon. The upper class has been waging class warfare for decades (er, actually since time immemorial, but I digress).
You don't understand "freedom of speech." It only protects you from government censorship. No one has to facilitate what you have to say. It is their store and their policy rules. Go play somewhere else if it bothers you.
You do not understand freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only means that the government won't abridge your speech. No one is required to facilitate your speech.
Imagine how better America would be if the government were run by scientists and engineers, and nutso religion-mongers were not allowed to hold office, much less vote? You know, I much rather prefer this sentiment expressed in the original German.
Best comment ever.
The only trickle down the common man feels is of the golden shower variety.
By solar heat, I mean the mirrors and chimney (air movement) desert style. You can cover huge swaths of the Sahara or other very large, mostly uninhabitable deserts with mirrors and a huge chimney to generate electricity.
And the taxes paid vs. subsidies actually are related, in a way. You see, Exxon pays income taxes in each country where it does business. Subsidies are strictly for drilling in the US, to encourage companies to do more business in the country. That not only results in more tax revenue from that company, it's also somewhat of a jobs program, since oil companies will drill in whatever country it makes the most economic sense, so various countries offer subsidies to encourage companies to develop their domestic resources, which requires local labor.
Still, it all goes back to what TYPE of energy to subsidize and tax - the less-polluting solar or the more-polluting oil. I believe the answer is obvious.
You just inserted your point of view. The point made by the AC (that Exxon Mobil is the single biggest source of tax revenue for the US Government [which by the way is NOT true]) remains irrelevant to topic of tax-subsidized energy.
No, I mean pollute LESS, like I said. Oil is a very nasty business in both extraction AND use. At least solar is only messy in producing the panels, not in use (and really not messy at all when you use solar HEATING, not photovoltaic). And to say it pollutes DIFFERENTLY, is to imply they are equal pollution-wise. Finally, I hope your Chernobyl comment was sarcasm, as the only thing beneficial to the flora and fauna was that it kept people away.
Irrelevant. They are taxed on profits, not oil, just as any corporation should be.
Unless you're talking about farts, you are wrong. For example http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/01/us-obama-budget-oil-idUSTRE6103RM20100201
The trouble is that corp wellfare only works in this country alone. Unless you're suggesting that we also subsidies energy in other countries too.
The best argument I've ever heard against subsidies for Green technology was from a VC in Silicon Valley and the interview was in Scientific American a few months ago - and I can't find the damn article.
In a nutshell, a green energy source must be economically feasible without subsidies because the places where they have the greatest chance of being adopted are in developing countries - countries that cannot afford to subsidize energy. The same goes for in developed countries - for political reasons.
The argument that with enough subsides eventually it will become economically feasible doesn't cut it and it's not true. The subsidies have a habit of never going away - see Oil Industry.
Make a "green" energy source economically feasibly without subsidies and it will take the World by storm - there will be no need for laws to force people to use it or tax incentives or any other political trickery.
A superior technology will win and has always won.
Yeah, but if we're going to subsidize energy, how about energy that pollutes less (solar, not oil)
No, Apple did not screw up. The boneheads who jailbreak their iPhones did.
The great thing about Fry's is that you can tell which products suck shit. There will be fifty boxes with bright labels on them assuring you that they have been fully inspected by Fry's employees and work great like the unopened boxes!
I suspect it's more that haters will be haters no matter the news. Apple suing? Apple bad. Apple being sued? They deserve it.
Waaaa!
I notice there was no thought given to the discharge direction. You wouldn't want to send all the clippings into the next path to be mowed. otherwise it will build up and build up.
Yup. My strategy while using my Cub Cadet rider (side discharge) around the house is completely different than the one for my pull-behind brush-hog (rear discharge) attached to my New Holland that I use for the other 4 acres.
Truly, drinking a beer on a riding mower is virtually pointless. I find that the vibration turns the beer flat almost instantly, especially in the cupholder.
No, the problem is that Amazon tells developers publicly that they will get 20% even on free deals in order to draw them in, tells the users that too, and then secretly sends them emails saying they will earn nothing, *and* Amazon controls their price for a few days after the offer, *and* Amazon takes 80% of sales for a few days after the offer - outrageous terms, which they hope the devs will accept because they have already put time and money into the store and are desperate for exposure. Having read this, I wouldn't go near the Amazon store - they sound like groupon.
Apple's app store is looking pretty damn fantastic right about now.
They're doing this because exploration and production is currently very profitable while refining and marketing is have trouble with shrinking margins due to the price of crude, increased regulation, etc. They're getting smaller not to hide profits but to dump operating costs.
Correction: they are doing this to get another round of bonuses for executives. Bonuses when the merge; bonuses when the break up. Rinse and repeat.
100 billion in profits on 1 trillion in sales means you have 10% margin out of that 90% is overhead. And you are making 1% profit. Only billion dollar companies can live with that. Even Dell makes 15%, and Apple makes 30%.
Record profits only have meaning when you think like a small minded idiot.
But Dell and Apple are taking billions in tax subsidies to prop up CEO bonuses.