Take those away from the stats, and an amazing thing happens, our gun crime rate is in line with Europes. (Watch some idiots raise "racist" smokescreen out of my factual observation.
No, it's not your racism I draw attention to. It's your lack of knowledge that Europe also has non-european descent minorities. Guns are the difference, not the mix of races.
BTW, Certain members of Slashdot that want to get rid of all guns not owned by the government would do well to read this page; but they won't...
I clicked on it, and I got bored. The argument that guns should be a right because some long dead man in a different era, said so. A long dead man with far less knowledge of the world than I have. It doesn't work for me.
As a member of the public, I am interested in if my neighbor had an abortion because I like to gossip.
Unfortunately you fail to understand the difference between what the public may find interesting, and what is in the public interest. They are not the same.
According to any of the logic that I have inferred: you should not have the right to commit suicide with a gun.
Of course you don't "have the right to commit suicide with a gun". Unlike some other countries, suicide is not illegal in the US. But just because something is not illegal doesn't mean you have a right to it.
Having sex with a supermodel isn't illegal, but that doesn't mean you have the right to it.
If you have a gun and ammo, and want to commit suicide, then fine, go ahead, there's nothing stopping you. But no one, including the government, is obliged to make sure you have access to a gun, in order that you can take that course of action. It's not a right.
Furthermore, there's no reason why a government shouldn't take action to reduce suicide deaths. Just as they take action to reduce smoking deaths. It's a public health matter.
No, your brain will be on one thing or the other. You can TRY and keep your mind on both, but what you'll actually be doing is just switching your attention back and forth between the two. And as the video doesn't stop, you will miss stuff. That's exactly what happens when people have TV on whilst they do something else. The TV is on in the background. Often people don't even realise when the show they were originally watching is finished.
For sure, it maybe that the TV show is so ponderous or dumbed down it doesn't matter whether you miss chunks of it. But you will be missing those chunks.
As I say, the idea of watching a vid and doing something else as well on a phone is silly.
This may have been the case when it all started, but at some point, Apple realized the earning potential to monetize the entire experience. They provide the Hardware, and the mechanism to provide Apps, as well as provide the content. It is not in Apple's best interests to allow the user to acquire content through other sources. Period.
The problem with your belief is that there are no facts to back it up. We know that Apple make lots of profit on the hardware. But there's no evidence that they make very much profit from iTunes.
Apple can claim all day long that they are just a Hardware Company, but I haven't believed that for a long time.
It's not Apple that are claiming it. It's just the conclusion that most people who watch Apple closely have come to.
As a consumer and developer, it's nice to know the platform I'm using will be well-supported and targeted - and that comes predominantly from being a ubiquitous, high-market-share platform.
And somehow you've got it into your head that that's Samsung and not Apple.
You are inconsistent. Why do you care that Samsung has greater worldwide market share than Apple, but not care that Apple makes more profit from phones.
As a consumer, it makes no difference which one is slightly ahead in market share.
As a shareholder, profit matters more than market share.
When things are developed right through to ready to ship, and then are cancelled, that's a huge waste of money. Your comment doesn't reflect that fact.
Nor have you taken on board the morale issues that Fadell raises.
Slashdot Mirror
Those funny looking Taliban guys would like to disagree.
There's an enormous difference between resistance against a culturally different invading force, and an uprising against the homeland government.
Take those away from the stats, and an amazing thing happens, our gun crime rate is in line with Europes. (Watch some idiots raise "racist" smokescreen out of my factual observation.
No, it's not your racism I draw attention to. It's your lack of knowledge that Europe also has non-european descent minorities. Guns are the difference, not the mix of races.
So if your neighbour makes a large bomb, that's OK is it? As long as he doesn't explode it.
BTW, Certain members of Slashdot that want to get rid of all guns not owned by the government would do well to read this page; but they won't...
I clicked on it, and I got bored. The argument that guns should be a right because some long dead man in a different era, said so. A long dead man with far less knowledge of the world than I have. It doesn't work for me.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
It's perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracise those who own firearms. And FOIA means the public has a right to know who they are.
Publicising the list simply makes it easier for the public to exercise their rights to ostracise.
As a member of the public, I am interested in if my neighbor had an abortion because I like to gossip.
Unfortunately you fail to understand the difference between what the public may find interesting, and what is in the public interest. They are not the same.
If you were paying attention to australia after they outlawed guns violent crime went up over 30% and home invasions even higher.
Not true.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
If you're in favour of hammer control, then clearly you are in favour of gun control too.
The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held weapons is an argument for stricter gun control.
After all, plenty of gun owners make no secret of the fact - bumper stickers and signs on gates for example.
According to any of the logic that I have inferred: you should not have the right to commit suicide with a gun.
Of course you don't "have the right to commit suicide with a gun". Unlike some other countries, suicide is not illegal in the US. But just because something is not illegal doesn't mean you have a right to it.
Having sex with a supermodel isn't illegal, but that doesn't mean you have the right to it.
If you have a gun and ammo, and want to commit suicide, then fine, go ahead, there's nothing stopping you. But no one, including the government, is obliged to make sure you have access to a gun, in order that you can take that course of action. It's not a right.
Furthermore, there's no reason why a government shouldn't take action to reduce suicide deaths. Just as they take action to reduce smoking deaths. It's a public health matter.
Apple iPhones have infected apps out there in the wild also, same as Android.
No, not the same. A drop of water, long since evaporated is not the same as a bucket of water.
If you jailbreak your phone and download apps from outside the apple store, you too will be risking getting malware.
In further news, condoms are useless if you cut the ends off them. Doh!
No, your brain will be on one thing or the other. You can TRY and keep your mind on both, but what you'll actually be doing is just switching your attention back and forth between the two. And as the video doesn't stop, you will miss stuff. That's exactly what happens when people have TV on whilst they do something else. The TV is on in the background. Often people don't even realise when the show they were originally watching is finished.
For sure, it maybe that the TV show is so ponderous or dumbed down it doesn't matter whether you miss chunks of it. But you will be missing those chunks.
As I say, the idea of watching a vid and doing something else as well on a phone is silly.
Check the annual report... Not sure....
As I said. No evidence of profit on iTunes there.
how much of that is profit but I would assume it higher than Appleâ(TM)s 40% gross margin â" so yeah â" it is a considerable chunk of change.
Sounds like a very bad assumption. Certainly not one based on evidence.
Damn it! iPhone is once again not affected. One of these days I'll get the chance to welcome the malware overlords!
This may have been the case when it all started, but at some point, Apple realized the earning potential to monetize the entire experience. They provide the Hardware, and the mechanism to provide Apps, as well as provide the content. It is not in Apple's best interests to allow the user to acquire content through other sources. Period.
The problem with your belief is that there are no facts to back it up. We know that Apple make lots of profit on the hardware. But there's no evidence that they make very much profit from iTunes.
Apple can claim all day long that they are just a Hardware Company, but I haven't believed that for a long time.
It's not Apple that are claiming it. It's just the conclusion that most people who watch Apple closely have come to.
Indeed. The question of whether this is a breach of the walled garden is stupid.
One might also note that people have been playing music from YouTube from the start. For free.
Every dictator that ever seized power anywhere in the world, disarmed the public first
As I showed, your claim is false.
Endlessly repeating the BULLSHIT fairy-tails of your corporate sponsored neoliberal masters
OK, so you're yet another crank. Funny how all the cranks are in favour of guns. Well, not so much funny as disturbing.
Oh dear god. If you don't know the concept of channel stuffing, don't even get involved in the grown ups conversation.
As a consumer and developer, it's nice to know the platform I'm using will be well-supported and targeted - and that comes predominantly from being a ubiquitous, high-market-share platform.
And somehow you've got it into your head that that's Samsung and not Apple.
Doh!
Steve never reorganised the parking spaces. He just dumped his car in a disabled space. They're always by the door.
Marketshare is the goal of computing devices where the largest ecosystem wins.
And yet Apple is winning. It's the biggest company, and makes the most profit.
So clearly you are mistaken. You're mistaken because your android fanboyism overrules logic for you.
"Profitability" is a red herring for fanbois.
Moron. Profitability is vital for companies and shareholders. If you're not profitable, no amount of marketshare will save you.
You are inconsistent. Why do you care that Samsung has greater worldwide market share than Apple, but not care that Apple makes more profit from phones.
As a consumer, it makes no difference which one is slightly ahead in market share.
As a shareholder, profit matters more than market share.
Your unreferenced claim is, in fact, incorrect - Apple has sold more iPhones (all models) than Samsung GALAXY phones. Not all Samsung smartphones.
How many Bada OS and Windows Phone devices do you imagine they sell?
When things are developed right through to ready to ship, and then are cancelled, that's a huge waste of money. Your comment doesn't reflect that fact.
Nor have you taken on board the morale issues that Fadell raises.
It isn't nearly as simple as you think.