I'm also amazed at how many times that ridiculous argument is raised.
If apple licensed their OS to other manufacturers THEN it might have some merit.
What matters is Andorid is eating Apples lunch. It doesn't matter if its being eaten by one company or 10 companies. The world has voted, and it is swinging away from iOS.
And in next quarter's results this will be even more evident as they will not include all of the iphone users going thru their once-a-year-every-year replacement.
Reason 0 to add to your list is embodied in the first sentence of the posted summary:
Several states are using an online balloting website based on Microsoft's Azure cloud-computing platform to allow U.S. voters living overseas to cast their votes via the Web in 2012 primary elections.
Other than the deployed military or remotely stationed government employees, anyone choosing to live overseas has pretty much given up their right to vote and entrusted the running of the country to their fellow countrymen if you ask me. (Yes, I realize you didn't ask me).
The idea that every person, where ever they are, regardless of how inconvenient or expensive they have made it for themselves to vote must be given the opportunity to vote is something never conceived of by the founding fathers. You made your self unavailable.
Military and Government and corporate employers have the means to schlep absentee ballots all over the world, or use regular mail.
But why should the government choose to expend untold millions to gather the vote people who choose to live elsewhere? Especially when "elsewhere" is outside of the US jurisdiction.
It's not hard for me to imagine a defendant having a 3rd party make a post on a juror's Facebook page. Maybe just a veiled threat that only the juror would recognize. It's not just outside information (unvetted) - criminals could use it to influence the outcome of a trial. It will happen, if it hasn't already.
Online bullying the jury anyone?
Simple: Don't read your facebook page for the duration. A threat not viewed is not going to influence you.
Please tell me you aren't THAT addicted that you can't communicate via email or (shudder) phone calls with those people you need to keep in DAILY touch with for the week or so you might serve on a jury. There is life on earth without Facebook.
You're telling me. I was on a jury once for a month. The court staff and judge were all super nice as long as we followed the rules and held up our end, but it's tiring and time consuming under the best of situations. You spend 4 days a week going back and forth between trial and hanging out in a room with a group of people you have only one thing in common with. And that one thing you have in common you're not allowed to talk about until deliberations.
You are right, its not that bad, other than the money you are out by missing work. I've never served more than a week, so it might be way worse for those three month "show trials".
Best thing to do is bring a book, or an ipod, because you will have plenty of time to use either. There always ends up being a lot of waiting around. First order of business if selected, is get on the good side of the Bailiff. Its not his fault you are there. A friendly bailiff (and most of them are) will make your stay in the juror jail a lot more comfortable.
Judges in the US quit representing the rights of people a LONG time ago.
All they do is screw you if you aren't rich or powerful, and let you slide if you are.
The only people who still respect the system in the US are naive fools who have no idea how quickly the system will turn on them if it suits the needs of those in power.
Judges were never supposed to represent the rights of people. Nor the rights of the state. They are there to be impartial and enforce the rules of the court to assure the fairest possible trial.
You sound like someone who has had his bail revoked once too many times.
In my experience, the smart ones are the least likely to try to avoid Jury duty, and the ones who are merely smart-asses, are the most likely to do so.
I've sat thru a lot of jury voir dire processes, and have never seen people excused for being merely intelligent, educated, or well read. I've seen news junkies dismissed simply because they had too much prior knowledge of the case, and have been dismissed myself for being personal friends with the lawyers involved.
The TV/Movie drama of jury consultants carefully hand picking juries just doesn't work in most cases because each side has a limited number of challenges, and there has to be huge money riding on the trial before its even worth the cost. Quite frankly, from what I have read, these consultants have a less than stellar record of success, and once it becomes clear to the jury that they were hand picked by high paid suits they are as likely to view that as a sign of guilt as any thing else.
I see no reason for special rules, (and a lot of danger in allowing special rules) for electronic devices or social media.
The prohibition of talking about the trial should be enough. If you can't convince a jury to adhere to that rule you have no hope of making any device or social rules stick either. More rules are not the answer.
Given the current reactionary trend, it wouldn't surprise me to see lawyers start demanding passwords and or confiscating phones or, at the very minimum, demand a list of your screen names.
By my estimate they could cut the price in half and still make a profit.
None of the articles cited state the profit margin on the hardware, which I suspect is quite low. The profit is all in the app store and iTunes store...
Everything I've ever read about the app store suggests that it runs at very little profit. Apple has stated as much in their 10K. They run it to support device sales, and device sales are their bread and butter.
The profit margin on an iPhone is almost twice what the competition enjoys. Close to 60% pure profit. Its been this way for a long time. Check this CNN-Money article. iPhone sales have crept up from about 30% of Apples Gross to about 50%.
iTunes is the loss leader, not the iPhone or iPad.
It may not make sense to you, but it sure make sense to apple fans. If they didn't care about technology they wouldn't buy every new phone apple puts out.
Making things expensive has ALWAYS brought new customers and repeat customers. If the product in question is anything other than a commodity, raising the price, and thereby implying a better product always sells well.
Pretty sure there are regulations against polluting a stream. 1580 feet downstream of this is a navigable river. So your huge philosophical troll-bait is moot.
No, you can't tell its blood, but you can see a color difference upstream vs downstream even in Google Maps. The creek is generally green upstream, and dark ruddy brown below the plant.
If you zoom in closer on Google Earth you can see this color shift very well.: 32.749052 -96.789131 Also the historical imagery on Google Earth does not show this if you step back to 2009, when water levels were much higher or 2008 when they were similarly low.
I'll have to disagree...it's tech worthy news. The more money Apple gets, the more money they have to influence the shape of things to come.
It's good to be aware of the shifts in power and the current status quo regardless of whether you are a fanboi or not.
The profit levels say nothing about the shape of things to come (other than more law suits).
What the do indicate is the excessive level of profit is cranked into the iphone/ipad line. By my estimate they could cut the price in half and still make a profit. None of the other phone or tablet makers have this kind of profit margin, yet their products easily match the iOS products in quality and ease of use.
If apple cut their prices the "cool factor" would be diminished, and the fanbois would move onto something else. If they aren't over paying top dollar its just obviously not the best thing ever.
You couldn't begin to pay market value for the land occupied by your cable plant. Its a gift to you from the city and state as their contribution to a valuable service.
Agreed, for the most part. But do remember, that we do not live in a pure democracy, the founding father went out of their way to avoid that. There are some pretty well generally accepted limits placed on the purpose and scope of government.
Taking broadband under the wing of government might not be the best solution economically, technically, or as a legal precedent.
Still, if a municipality votes to do so in an open election, I see no reason (other than a philosophical one) why they should be prevented from doing so.
If its paid for by a user fees, that's great. Even a bond issue, or a tax increase is fine if the people voted for it.
But as you well know, too often these decisions are made by a sinecure composed of a few elected representatives and their contractor buddies, and the voters get no actual say in the matter. And too often the city turns to the State for revenue for projects that should have been locally funded simply because the tax base is tapped out and the court house is falling to ruin, and the parks are not being maintained because the money is spent on projects that really are not the business of government.
And this again leaves the question of why you would want internet service from the government.
Would you want your newspaper from the government too? And if you were dumb and gullible enough to vote for a government newspaper with the ability to lock out competitive news papers, would it not be the proper place for a republican form of State or Federal government (small "r") to step in and say, no, that is not what government is for? Can a city really decide to go off on any tangent they want to?
Have you never heard of the universal practice of Overselling the bandwidth?. What socket table saturation at routers by high numbers of bit torrent users behind a common router? Any of these ringing any bells?
The only hope of this gaining any legs is if the Republicans pick up this ball and run with it, but they won't do that either because they have just as many fingers in the till as the Democrats.
Right, so:
Had Dodd been a Republican, there would already be a call for a Special Prosecutor.
Is false.
Actually, no, its not false.
Just because corruption occurs in both/all parties, does not mean that the party currently in power will not appoint Special Prosecutors / Independent Counsels.
I don't discount anything you say, but bear in mind that as things stand today, Corporations are people too, and they own their property just as surely as you own yours. Look up the derivation of the word Corporation.
If they were successful in un-coupling themselves from any designation as a public entity, then claiming they and their equipment is purely private? They lose public rights-of-way for any stretch of their network that crosses private property (including easements in some cases).
What world do you live in?
The easement for cable and telephones pre-dates your ownership of the property. There are usually zero conditions upon this easement, nor it it taxed. Public entities are seldom the sole users of right of way corridors. Cable companies (TV Internet), phone companies, gas, electric and in some cases even water and steam lines from private providers pass under your lawn. The easement is written into your deed. Its unconditional. And god help you if they find oil or coal under your property.
Had Dodd been a Republican, there would already be a call for a Special Prosecutor.
But asking this administration to investigate one of its own is pointless, and asking them to investigate their largest campaign contributors is simply ridiculous. The only hope of this gaining any legs is if the Republicans pick up this ball and run with it, but they won't do that either because they have just as many fingers in the till as the Democrats.
Don't be silly. There is no "HAS TO" when the government is involved. And a one word response of "DENIED" is all you are likely to get, or the Washington equivalent, of a vague promise of having it looked into, followed by a chuckle-fest in the back room over brandy on the rocks.
The whole thing sort of reminds me of one of the typical flame fests here on Slashdot or Usenet. Lots of smelly wet wool. But nobody notices that you "won the internet".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also amazed at how many times that ridiculous argument is raised.
If apple licensed their OS to other manufacturers THEN it might have some merit.
What matters is Andorid is eating Apples lunch. It doesn't matter if its being eaten by one company or 10 companies. The world has voted, and it is swinging away from iOS.
And in next quarter's results this will be even more evident as they will not include all of the iphone users going thru their once-a-year-every-year replacement.
Reason 0 to add to your list is embodied in the first sentence of the posted summary:
Several states are using an online balloting website based on Microsoft's Azure cloud-computing platform to allow U.S. voters living overseas to cast their votes via the Web in 2012 primary elections.
Other than the deployed military or remotely stationed government employees, anyone choosing to live overseas has pretty much given up their right to vote and entrusted the running of the country to their fellow countrymen if you ask me. (Yes, I realize you didn't ask me).
The idea that every person, where ever they are, regardless of how inconvenient or expensive they have made it for themselves to vote must be given the opportunity to vote is something never conceived of by the founding fathers. You made your self unavailable.
Military and Government and corporate employers have the means to schlep absentee ballots all over the world, or use regular mail.
But why should the government choose to expend untold millions to gather the vote people who choose to live elsewhere? Especially when "elsewhere" is outside of the US jurisdiction.
It's not hard for me to imagine a defendant having a 3rd party make a post on a juror's Facebook page. Maybe just a veiled threat that only the juror would recognize. It's not just outside information (unvetted) - criminals could use it to influence the outcome of a trial. It will happen, if it hasn't already.
Online bullying the jury anyone?
Simple: Don't read your facebook page for the duration. A threat not viewed is not going to influence you.
Please tell me you aren't THAT addicted that you can't communicate via email or (shudder) phone calls with those people you need to keep in DAILY touch with for the week or so you might serve on a jury. There is life on earth without Facebook.
You're telling me. I was on a jury once for a month. The court staff and judge were all super nice as long as we followed the rules and held up our end, but it's tiring and time consuming under the best of situations. You spend 4 days a week going back and forth between trial and hanging out in a room with a group of people you have only one thing in common with. And that one thing you have in common you're not allowed to talk about until deliberations.
You are right, its not that bad, other than the money you are out by missing work. I've never served more than a week, so it might be way worse for those three month "show trials".
Best thing to do is bring a book, or an ipod, because you will have plenty of time to use either. There always ends up being a lot of waiting around.
First order of business if selected, is get on the good side of the Bailiff. Its not his fault you are there. A friendly bailiff (and most of them are) will make your stay in the juror jail a lot more comfortable.
Judges in the US quit representing the rights of people a LONG time ago.
All they do is screw you if you aren't rich or powerful, and let you slide if you are.
The only people who still respect the system in the US are naive fools who have
no idea how quickly the system will turn on them if it suits the needs of those in power.
Judges were never supposed to represent the rights of people. Nor the rights of the state.
They are there to be impartial and enforce the rules of the court to assure the fairest possible trial.
You sound like someone who has had his bail revoked once too many times.
In my experience, the smart ones are the least likely to try to avoid Jury duty, and the ones
who are merely smart-asses, are the most likely to do so.
I've sat thru a lot of jury voir dire processes, and have never seen people excused for being merely intelligent, educated, or well read.
I've seen news junkies dismissed simply because they had too much prior knowledge of the case, and have been dismissed myself for
being personal friends with the lawyers involved.
The TV/Movie drama of jury consultants carefully hand picking juries just doesn't work in most cases because each side has a limited number of challenges, and there has to be huge money riding on the trial before its even worth the cost. Quite frankly, from what I have read, these consultants have a less than stellar record of success, and once it becomes clear to the jury that they were hand picked by high paid suits they are as likely to view that as a sign of guilt as any thing else.
Exactly.
I see no reason for special rules, (and a lot of danger in allowing special rules) for electronic devices or social media.
The prohibition of talking about the trial should be enough. If you can't convince a jury to adhere to that rule you have no hope of making any device or social rules stick either. More rules are not the answer.
Given the current reactionary trend, it wouldn't surprise me to see lawyers start demanding passwords and or confiscating phones or, at the very minimum, demand a list of your screen names.
read it and weep fanboi: http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/14/shocker-android-grew-us-market-share-after-q2-ios-was-static/
Have you been off planet for a while?
Android already exceed 50% of smartphone sales, and Apple is hovering around 26%.
By my estimate they could cut the price in half and still make a profit.
None of the articles cited state the profit margin on the hardware, which I suspect is quite low. The profit is all in the app store and iTunes store...
Everything I've ever read about the app store suggests that it runs at very little profit. Apple has stated as much in their 10K.
They run it to support device sales, and device sales are their bread and butter.
The profit margin on an iPhone is almost twice what the competition enjoys. Close to 60% pure profit.
Its been this way for a long time. Check this CNN-Money article.
iPhone sales have crept up from about 30% of Apples Gross to about 50%.
iTunes is the loss leader, not the iPhone or iPad.
It may not make sense to you, but it sure make sense to apple fans.
If they didn't care about technology they wouldn't buy every new phone apple puts out.
Making things expensive has ALWAYS brought new customers and repeat customers. If the product in question is anything other than a commodity, raising the price, and thereby implying a better product always sells well.
Pretty sure there are regulations against polluting a stream. 1580 feet downstream of this is a navigable river.
So your huge philosophical troll-bait is moot.
A better link: http://g.co/maps/8vdr9
No, you can't tell its blood, but you can see a color difference upstream vs downstream even in Google Maps.
The creek is generally green upstream, and dark ruddy brown below the plant.
If you zoom in closer on Google Earth you can see this color shift very well.: 32.749052 -96.789131
Also the historical imagery on Google Earth does not show this if you step back to 2009, when water levels were much higher
or 2008 when they were similarly low.
I'll have to disagree ...it's tech worthy news. The more money Apple gets, the more money they have to influence the shape of things to come.
It's good to be aware of the shifts in power and the current status quo regardless of whether you are a fanboi or not.
The profit levels say nothing about the shape of things to come (other than more law suits).
What the do indicate is the excessive level of profit is cranked into the iphone/ipad line.
By my estimate they could cut the price in half and still make a profit. None of the other phone
or tablet makers have this kind of profit margin, yet their products easily match the iOS products
in quality and ease of use.
If apple cut their prices the "cool factor" would be diminished, and the fanbois would move onto something
else. If they aren't over paying top dollar its just obviously not the best thing ever.
Your plant is taxed.
Your Easement is not.
You couldn't begin to pay market value for the land occupied by your cable plant. Its a gift to you from the city and state as their contribution to a valuable service.
Agreed, for the most part.
But do remember, that we do not live in a pure democracy, the founding father went out of their way to avoid that. There are some pretty well generally accepted limits placed on the purpose and scope of government.
Taking broadband under the wing of government might not be the best solution economically, technically, or as a legal precedent.
Still, if a municipality votes to do so in an open election, I see no reason (other than a philosophical one) why they should be prevented from doing so.
If its paid for by a user fees, that's great. Even a bond issue, or a tax increase is fine if the people voted for it.
But as you well know, too often these decisions are made by a sinecure composed of a few elected representatives and their contractor buddies, and the voters get no actual say in the matter. And too often the city turns to the State for revenue for projects that should have been locally funded simply because the tax base is tapped out and the court house is falling to ruin, and the parks are not being maintained because the money is spent on projects that really are not the business of government.
And this again leaves the question of why you would want internet service from the government.
Would you want your newspaper from the government too? And if you were dumb and gullible enough to vote for a government newspaper with the ability to lock out competitive news papers, would it not be the proper place for a republican form of State or Federal government (small "r") to step in and say, no, that is not what government is for? Can a city really decide to go off on any tangent they want to?
Which is exactly what is happening, so, if you had a point, I fail to see it.
There is no law mandating a response.
All you have is an Obama promise, which, when combined with $2.90 will get you a cup of coffee at some cafes.
Citations already exist in this thread of other petitions on that site that have met the threshold and have still had no response.
Where have you been for the last 10 years?
Have you never heard of the universal practice of Overselling the bandwidth?.
What socket table saturation at routers by high numbers of bit torrent users behind a common router?
Any of these ringing any bells?
The only hope of this gaining any legs is if the Republicans pick up this ball and run with it, but they won't do that either because they have just as many fingers in the till as the Democrats.
Right, so:
Had Dodd been a Republican, there would already be a call for a Special Prosecutor.
Is false.
Actually, no, its not false.
Just because corruption occurs in both/all parties, does not mean that the party currently in power will not appoint Special Prosecutors / Independent Counsels.
The scope of the mandate to these prosecutors is strictly limited to specific actions by specific individuals or specific matters, and anything they accidentally discover about the actions of people outside their mandate is never brought to light.
I don't discount anything you say, but bear in mind that as things stand today, Corporations are people too, and they own their property just as surely as you own yours. Look up the derivation of the word Corporation.
If they were successful in un-coupling themselves from any designation as a public entity, then claiming they and their equipment is purely private? They lose public rights-of-way for any stretch of their network that crosses private property (including easements in some cases).
What world do you live in?
The easement for cable and telephones pre-dates your ownership of the property. There are usually zero conditions upon this easement, nor it it taxed.
Public entities are seldom the sole users of right of way corridors. Cable companies (TV Internet), phone companies, gas, electric and in some cases even water and steam lines from private providers pass under your lawn. The easement is written into your deed. Its unconditional. And god help you if they find oil or coal under your property.
WTF is wrong with you!?! I can't believe that you could say such a thing!!!
Everyone knows that you *never* serve brandy on the rocks. Geez!
Well played Sir!
I raise my glass in your general direction.
Had Dodd been a Republican, there would already be a call for a Special Prosecutor.
But asking this administration to investigate one of its own is pointless, and asking them to investigate their largest campaign contributors is simply ridiculous. The only hope of this gaining any legs is if the Republicans pick up this ball and run with it, but they won't do that either because they have just as many fingers in the till as the Democrats.
Don't be silly.
There is no "HAS TO" when the government is involved.
And a one word response of "DENIED" is all you are likely to get, or the Washington equivalent, of a vague promise of having it looked into, followed by a chuckle-fest in the back room over brandy on the rocks.
The whole thing sort of reminds me of one of the typical flame fests here on Slashdot or Usenet. Lots of smelly wet wool. But nobody notices that you "won the internet".