So, were Samsung's lawyers silent? Why did they not have Slashdot open to get this incessant stream of unbeatable arguments to argue their case? I assume you would not have questioned the impartiality of the judge had the decision fallen the other way...
I suppose that would depend on whether her reasoning was equally questionable.
The facts are these: 1. Apple iPads are selling like hot cakes 2. Samsung has had good success with the Galaxy Tab 3. That success hasn't slowed iPad sales in the least 4. The US is the largest consumer market on the planet, getting banned from it is seriously non-trivial
With those facts in hand this judge decided that the virtual non-impact of this "infringement" is more damaging to Apple than having one of their most important products kicked out of the US supply chain. You really think that sounds logical?
Apple hasn't been harmed in any measurable way beyond their ego. This isn't a trademark case and as such there was no duty to prosecute to this degree or risk loosing protections. I presume based on your multiple replies to me that you think this ruling is completely fair and logical. Is that correct?
My primary gripe with saying that Apple is so innovative and that everyone else is just copying them stems from two things:
Apple was the first to come out with a tablet of that rough shape and size. I still believe that was driven more by them jumping on the available technology that others wanted to use, but didn't jump on first. To wit: a mere two years before the iPad launch there were no good capacitive touchscreens and displays to use with it. The CPUs were too slow or power hungry. That's why all previous "tablets" looked the way they were. There was no other way to build them at the time. I'll grant that it is a bit of a coincidence and it does look a bit fishy. However, if you look at it from the perspective of "design an object to be used by human hands in manner X, Y and Z with technology set ABC" you get something that looks more or less like an iPad. Whether it is a copy or not depends on fine details and personal perspective. I've had people mistake my Asus Transformer TF101 for an iPad and to me it looks nothing like one. Does that make it a copy because it has four rounded corners and a black front?
Samsung's design does look more similar to the iPad than I believe is wise. It is not how I would have done it. However, when Apple comes back with something similar to "we own rounded corners, black colors and a simple front" it is hard not to respond with "are you nuts?".
In the end, it is hard to look at either of them as "super innovative" if you grew up watching Star Trek: The Next Generation and the shows that followed it.
Gee... I really want you to like me... but since you're trolling me I'll simply direct you to the court ruling and tell you to go fuck yourself.
In the first place, get your tone filter adjusted...:)
And in the second, just because a court said "X is infringing" doesn't mean they got it right. It just means they bought Apple's specious argument. The idea that the sales of the iPad are significantly harmed or that Apple is even noticing the impact beyond their ego is beyond silly. Thus, the logic that the harm to Apple is greater than the harm to Samsung when their harm is being kicked out of the largest market on the planet is laughable.
The idea the judge felt that it was absolutely necessary to prevent Samsung from selling their tablet to prevent this "harm" prior to a trial for final determination is also laughable and makes me wonder about her impartiality.
I am going to take significant exception to you ignoring probably the number one reason that Samsung's design changed and that the iPad came out when it did and is designed the way it is...
The availability of hardware to support that design. You can't tell me that people didn't want to produce nearly identical devices for decades prior to the introduction of either. What's more, the shape of both is practically the only logical shape for a device to be used in this role and in this method. The previous shapes made were largely dictated by the limited hardware options at the time. You say the 2010 release of the iPad "impacted" the design of the Series 7 without bothering to acknowledge that just a few short years prior to the release of either device it would have been impossible to make devices like these at a reasonable price point.
So smart guy, you say you can easily come up with a non-infringing device while Apple is essentially laying claim to all rectangular (do they claim squares too?) devices with rounded corners and beveled edges. Lets see what you'd come up with that anyone would actually buy.
Also, as is stated below there is absolutely nothing innovative about the hardware design of the iPad. Its design is almost entirely dictated by its function as a content consumption device intended to be held comfortably by human hands.
It may still count as an Apple innovation. I believe the first time data detectors (i.e. things that recognise telephone numbers and so on from text and display contextual actions) appeared was the Newton. That said, the Newton was released 19 years ago, so the patents should be expiring round about now...
Patents granted and now expiring aside (presuming this is the case), can we really count what is in effect a regex as "innovation"? Especially when there is nothing unobvious about it?
What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?
If The Great Innovator, Apple, were to put out a blank white sheet of paper it seems there are a great number of people who would both buy it in silly quantities and call it the greatest innovation in the history of the universe. Herald it as the coming of a new age and one again proclaim His Holiness Lord Jobs (PBUH) the one true.. something or other.
It all comes down to it being far easier to sue the competition out of existence while merely coming up with new incremental advances in your devices than it is to compete on a level playing field.
Guess what. It's not expensive. The only reason for complaints is because it was never done in the first place. If this becomes properly commonplace it would easily provide benefit to more than just the hard of hearing. Some people, such as myself, would rather have a movie on mute with your own choice of preferred music instead of dramatic garbage they put into shitty movies. Or because movies are ridiculously loud. Or because of a TV and a computer in the same room - one person watching TV, the other on the computer.
This should not be about monetization - that is neither the answer nor even correct. This simply should be done for a variety of reasons such as foreign language speakers who can *read* english will then be able to watch movies or you can...gasp...have closed captions for other languages so that movies can be broadcast around the globe! Movie available for 1 country vs movie available in the 8 most popular languages. Which do you think gets more views (and thus more profit).
To act like there's somehow only a negative cost is to be completely and utterly dishonest to the fact that there's an enormous profit potential. This isn't a cost of business, this is an investment to make an obvious profit. Quit being intellectually dishonest.
I suspect the core issue is not whether or not providing CCs is a good idea (it is for many of the reasons you listed) but whether or not a company should be compelled under force of arms (all government for is ultimately force of arms) to provide such at their expense with exactly zero compensation. To consumers who care about the service enough to compel the company to provide it but oddly not enough to compensate them for providing it.
well we could take it to the next logical step, What about blind people? we need to make sure blind people can access the internet and "watch" their videos as well!
I am all for "fair access" but if the CC was not made available by the content maker, than how is it netflixes fault for not having them? Shouldnt the judge be charging the movie maker for not providing CC to begin with??
QFT.
Also, and I'm speaking as someone who has a loved one who uses CC from time to time, my huge problem with this kind of thing is that the National Association of Deaf People are in essence demanding that Netflix provide a seriously expensive service at no charge. I would be willing to bet that they would also have thrown a holy snit fit if they were asked to pay one red cent to provide this extremely expensive service.
As to the idea that these kinds of things should just be considered "another cost of business" it really shouldn't. If you want service X, then you should pay for it and not use the power of government to force someone to give it to you for free. As has been said, where do we draw the line?
Sad that even Google is afraid to take on the iPad in it's territory. Almost all the 10" Android tablets have seen dismal sales, HP Touchpad was sold in a firesale, Playbook's having a tough time and Amazon and Google are forced to play in the sub $200 territory. All of these devices are oriented towards only consumption. Maybe Microsoft Surface will get traction by doubling as a device that you can actually do some light work on, but lets see what price it launches at.
Yeah, the Asus Transformers sold so badly that they could barely keep them in stock at launch. Damn those poor sales!
I imagine Google went for the ~$200 territory as there are far far more people who will spend that on a tablet who don't already have one of those "poor selling" Android tablets or iPads. I'd be willing to bet that the $400+ tablet market is nearly saturated. So, where would you go? The high end of cost dominated by people who tend to choose style over power and flexibility, or the part of the market that would be interested in your product and don't already have a tablet.
To hire someone who's labor cannot justify the "living wage" is to engage in charity and many small business owners cannot afford to be that generous.
if you cannot afford to run your business without slave labor then society should not allow your business to remain open.
This is going to wreck my mods.. but...
How in the hell did this get a +5 Insightful?! What in the hell is insightful about calling a employee a slave? Get a damned clue. Person A offers to pay Person B a particular wage to do a job. The wage is determined by market forces including the size of the appropriate labor pool and Person B's qualifications to do said job. Person B can accept or not.
Not paying a "living wage" does not make the employee a slave or anything even remotely like it. Slaves don't have choices. Slaves can't improve their skills and move up. Slaves can't gain experience and then ask for improved pay.
Don't fucking conflate these two things. It is a dire insult to all those who have been slaves and those who still are.
In breaking news, sales figures are more meaningful than some study of unknown quality. When it comes to sales, iPad still blows away the competition by a large margin.
Without bothering with a reference....
Is that when one compares iPad Vs Individual Android Tablet Model or iPad Vs Android Tablets.
One is a meaningful comparison, the other isn't as useful.
Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.
Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? Yes. Does the UK have an extradition arrangement with Sweden (in this case as part of the EU I would figure)? Yes. Would the Swedish legal system treat him appropriately from the UK perspective if convicted of this particular crime, and will he get appropriate process? Yes, but that's why they have an extradition agreement at all.
At that point he's just delaying the inevitable. If not, then you'd have to kick one or both of Sweden and the UK out of the EU for not upholding the same basic sets of rights and rules. The question of whether or not the US is fabricating the whole thing can be addressed fairly in sweden (at least the UK would consider it fair).
Additionally, why do we care? Is it just because this egomaniac founded/was part of Wikileaks and this is Slashdot so therefore we care about anything connected to Wikileaks?
NONSENSE! Shut your face! With nothing but stupid "social funds" we would cure nothing but the dumbest stupidest things like malaria which only kills a few million people a year. How the hell would we ever have enough "social funds" to cure the important things like flaccid penises and hair loss that affects millions of very rich people? HOW? You ever stop to think before you open your stupid ape mouth?
Sheesh, the nerve on some people!
Huh... and where did all the money that is being spent to cure malaria come from?
I live in a metro area of half a million, and since the demise of Circuit City and CompUSA, when it comes to new-hardware-in-hand-today, the only options are: Best Buy, Office Depot/Max, the Apple Store, Radio Shack, and the electronics sections of the grocery/department stores.
From time to time I drive past the little shop where I bought the printer, modem, and other gear I needed to go with the C64 I got for high school graduation back in '83. Last I looked it was a tattoo studio. The days of the local computer shop are gone. {sigh}
From time to time I go to China. When I am there, there are things I miss about here. When I get back here, one of the biggest things I miss about there is the mindnumbing number of places to buy electronics. It is nearly the complete opposite of here. Here, the in-person market is completely dominated by a handful of big box stores with limited selection. There, the big boxes are just another player in the already established market of thriving smaller sellers. Part of that probably comes from the ability to literally walk to the factory where the stuff is made. In any case, I'm not sure it was ever that way here and certainly hasn't been for a long time.
The last time I saw something like that here was back when they still had "Computer Shows". Haven't seen one of those in years.
Except as the post to which you blindly replied pointed out, California is a better place to live and work than Texas is.
Except for the losers who can't even make it in California. Some of them do move to Texas. California is huge, the economy overall sucks, and some of the losers will move to Texas, among other places. Meanwhile, Texas losers move to California. The jobseekers mean nothing about where they came from. What is meaningful is that California's doing great, except that some of its people refuse to pay in taxes what they consume in services.
Those people are Republicans, and are more like Texans than they are different.
Except that it isn't... High state income taxes.. high CITY income taxes.. Yet, they still manage to spend far more money than they rake in. Odd that Texas doesn't have that problem. If your definition is going broke and choking on regulations, then yes, California is doing great and is clearly the place to live. On the other hand if your definition of doing great doesn't include such "features" then not so much. Having lived in California for a few years, I can say you would have a hard time paying me enough money to live there again.
I've got friends there that are worried about Californians coming to Texas for the jobs, and then trying to turn Texas into California.
You mean, a place with high-paying jobs that offer health-insurance, as well as some idea that just dumping crap into the environment might be a bad idea? That might actually be an improvement.
In the meantime, keep your paranoia to yourself.
It is not at all an unreasonable concern that people will vote for crap, California, and then when that place turns into the crap the voted for they go somewhere else and upon arrival they continue to vote for crap. Paranoia it isn't.
Blah blah blah, the gun rights advocates, or "gun nuts" are constantly going on about the need to protect themselves, about home invasions, and robberies, and race war.
I grew up in inner-city Chicago, and have traveled in all kinds of dangerous urban settings, at all hours of the day and night, both in Chicago and other cities, unarmed, and the worst thing I've experienced was harsh language.
The problem with gun nuts is they're fearful people. They're afraid of imaginary dangers that are unlikely to happen. Then they get drunk and angry and shoot a friend or family member.
FWIW: I legally own a handgun, which I acquired as an adult after growing not being around guns. My experience is that handguns are a waste of time, and more dangerous to the owner and his/her family than useful. Rifles and shotguns on the other hand are worthwhile investments for hunting, and fighting in the civil war against the Fascist Republicans.
Congratulations on projecting your experiences on to everyone else and making sweeping generalizations and accusations based upon them. The only thing missing was a penis issue reference so we'll have to deduct 10 points for that.
Handguns are by their nature the perfect self-defense weapon. Rifles and shotguns, though good things, are far more suited to offensive uses as you noted. I'm glad you've never been in a situation when you needed a handgun but that isn't the case for all of us. You might want to remember that not everyone has your experience and that you are not everyone, okay?
I don't see why it's so bad if the ACLU mostly just let's the NRA handle that one.
The problem is that the NRA is really not just a gun lobby. They also heavily promote the republican party when they're really part of the same problem — taking away our freedoms.
For better or worse I've always looked at that as more them promoting the people somewhat less likely to trample on their core issue. As a matter of general rule, with the usual block of salt added, Democrats are far far more likely to be at best luke warm on gun rights and tend to be somewhat to heavily anti-rights. Republicans tend to be luke warm to pro-rights (same block of salt). The NRA has backed Democrats who aren't anti-gun. There just aren't that many of them is all.
As an aside, I do generally agree with you that Republicans are part of the problem too.
When it comes to a presumption that IN THE FUTURE there will be a pension crisis, there is work done NOW to "solve" it for the current to-be-retired generation, decreasing benefit and increasing charges for the next generation. No proof, no standing, nothing at all needed, just the fearful statement "pension crisis looms". Yet when it comes to the pension of the next generation, which WILL be removed by the collapse of a society that can have retired old people drawing down a wage, where the costs of paying for avoiding that catastrophe will fall on the shoulders of the current-to-be-retired group, suddenly it's all "prove it! prove you have standing!".
Guess what: they are alive now, these kids. Unless you deliberately kill them off, they will inherit the country you leave behind.
THAT is their standing.
Big difference, a pension crisis can be proven with indisputable math. This many people pulling pensions times that many people paying into the system at such and such rate over such and such time. Pretty cut and dry. What these people are claiming is that something might happen at some undetermined point in the future based on science and systems which are not entirely understood. They are "demanding" that "something" be done immediately to stave off something which might happen. I'm sure you can see the substantial difference, no? As such, they can't prove harm in any way. Thus, no standing.
We don't elect representatives anymore, and we haven't since roughly 1970.
Our representatives are appointed for us by the electoral college, Diebold, and mass media.
People vote for whoever they are told to vote for, and if that doesn't work the some of the votes just "disappear", (or "extra" votes show up) and if THAT doesn't work, the system is allowed to simply ignore the votes altogether and appoint whoever they want for president.
You cannot seriously tell me that we elect our officials, in a world where the republication party can receive more VOTES in an particular region than there were VOTERS in that same region.
Judiciary is allowed to change existing laws, it's called case law and it has been part of our government from the very beginning. It was put in place as a protection from corrupt representatives.
LulWut?! I might agree with you that people tend to vote for who they're told to vote for through Mass Media. It is to no small degree part of the reason the US has moved further and further Left since the beginning of the age of mass media. However, you also clearly don't understand how any of this works. What's more, case law doesn't change the law but merely offers interpretations of it. The law is still the law.
But no, giant conspiracy. Central Committees. Smokey rooms filled with Republicans (because clearly the Democrats would never ever do anything so underhanded) making backroom deals. Nothing to see here. Move along.
...that the contractors making bank here are controlled by republicans?
Of course they are. We all know that democrats are saints and only Evil Republicans like Obama would trample all over the Constitution and run up huge deficits. Only Evil Republicans would ever run guns into another country like that evil Republican AG Holder.
You forgot to include the value of the items stolen by TSA employees, and items confiscated because they are alleged security hazards. Also, if you value the time of travelers as anything greater than zero, the needless delays imposed by TSA practices should be included.
Don't forget: 1. Lost value from people who no longer fly due to the TSA 2. Lost value from International tourism which no longer happens because of the TSA 3. Lost jobs from damage to the tourism industry 4. Projects canceled because of all of the above
I meant that someone from that time period would be shocked that paper was not representative of or exchangeable for either gold or silver, as was the case back then. Bimetallism was what kept us going through the industrial revolution. Violent currency instability occurred when the government instated the Coinage Act of 1873, which demonetized silver (and put us on one currency that had no competition). When the government later issued the Sherman Silver Purchase Act - requiring the government to buy silver at monthly quotas for double the market price - the currency market was warped even more (since the government was required by this act to buy silver, those selling silver to the government took the tickets they were given in return and traded them for gold - the circus that ensued caused the Panic of 1893). Ultimately, even though the ratio of value was set by the government between the two metals, the availability of both options allowed currency instability to cause less of a volatile environment, and recovery tended to be quick.
Quite right across the board. I apologize for misunderstanding your intention. I regret that I read into it a certain bias given to me by the run of the mill commenter hereon.:)
Slashdot Mirror
So, were Samsung's lawyers silent? Why did they not have Slashdot open to get this incessant stream of unbeatable arguments to argue their case? I assume you would not have questioned the impartiality of the judge had the decision fallen the other way...
I suppose that would depend on whether her reasoning was equally questionable.
The facts are these:
1. Apple iPads are selling like hot cakes
2. Samsung has had good success with the Galaxy Tab
3. That success hasn't slowed iPad sales in the least
4. The US is the largest consumer market on the planet, getting banned from it is seriously non-trivial
With those facts in hand this judge decided that the virtual non-impact of this "infringement" is more damaging to Apple than having one of their most important products kicked out of the US supply chain. You really think that sounds logical?
Apple hasn't been harmed in any measurable way beyond their ego. This isn't a trademark case and as such there was no duty to prosecute to this degree or risk loosing protections. I presume based on your multiple replies to me that you think this ruling is completely fair and logical. Is that correct?
My primary gripe with saying that Apple is so innovative and that everyone else is just copying them stems from two things:
Apple was the first to come out with a tablet of that rough shape and size. I still believe that was driven more by them jumping on the available technology that others wanted to use, but didn't jump on first. To wit: a mere two years before the iPad launch there were no good capacitive touchscreens and displays to use with it. The CPUs were too slow or power hungry. That's why all previous "tablets" looked the way they were. There was no other way to build them at the time. I'll grant that it is a bit of a coincidence and it does look a bit fishy. However, if you look at it from the perspective of "design an object to be used by human hands in manner X, Y and Z with technology set ABC" you get something that looks more or less like an iPad. Whether it is a copy or not depends on fine details and personal perspective. I've had people mistake my Asus Transformer TF101 for an iPad and to me it looks nothing like one. Does that make it a copy because it has four rounded corners and a black front?
Samsung's design does look more similar to the iPad than I believe is wise. It is not how I would have done it. However, when Apple comes back with something similar to "we own rounded corners, black colors and a simple front" it is hard not to respond with "are you nuts?".
In the end, it is hard to look at either of them as "super innovative" if you grew up watching Star Trek: The Next Generation and the shows that followed it.
So smart guy
Gee... I really want you to like me... but since you're trolling me I'll simply direct you to the court ruling and tell you to go fuck yourself.
In the first place, get your tone filter adjusted... :)
And in the second, just because a court said "X is infringing" doesn't mean they got it right. It just means they bought Apple's specious argument. The idea that the sales of the iPad are significantly harmed or that Apple is even noticing the impact beyond their ego is beyond silly. Thus, the logic that the harm to Apple is greater than the harm to Samsung when their harm is being kicked out of the largest market on the planet is laughable.
The idea the judge felt that it was absolutely necessary to prevent Samsung from selling their tablet to prevent this "harm" prior to a trial for final determination is also laughable and makes me wonder about her impartiality.
Not quoting the whole thing....
I am going to take significant exception to you ignoring probably the number one reason that Samsung's design changed and that the iPad came out when it did and is designed the way it is...
The availability of hardware to support that design. You can't tell me that people didn't want to produce nearly identical devices for decades prior to the introduction of either. What's more, the shape of both is practically the only logical shape for a device to be used in this role and in this method. The previous shapes made were largely dictated by the limited hardware options at the time. You say the 2010 release of the iPad "impacted" the design of the Series 7 without bothering to acknowledge that just a few short years prior to the release of either device it would have been impossible to make devices like these at a reasonable price point.
So smart guy, you say you can easily come up with a non-infringing device while Apple is essentially laying claim to all rectangular (do they claim squares too?) devices with rounded corners and beveled edges. Lets see what you'd come up with that anyone would actually buy.
Also, as is stated below there is absolutely nothing innovative about the hardware design of the iPad. Its design is almost entirely dictated by its function as a content consumption device intended to be held comfortably by human hands.
It may still count as an Apple innovation. I believe the first time data detectors (i.e. things that recognise telephone numbers and so on from text and display contextual actions) appeared was the Newton. That said, the Newton was released 19 years ago, so the patents should be expiring round about now...
Patents granted and now expiring aside (presuming this is the case), can we really count what is in effect a regex as "innovation"? Especially when there is nothing unobvious about it?
What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?
If The Great Innovator, Apple, were to put out a blank white sheet of paper it seems there are a great number of people who would both buy it in silly quantities and call it the greatest innovation in the history of the universe. Herald it as the coming of a new age and one again proclaim His Holiness Lord Jobs (PBUH) the one true.. something or other.
It all comes down to it being far easier to sue the competition out of existence while merely coming up with new incremental advances in your devices than it is to compete on a level playing field.
Guess what. It's not expensive. The only reason for complaints is because it was never done in the first place. If this becomes properly commonplace it would easily provide benefit to more than just the hard of hearing. Some people, such as myself, would rather have a movie on mute with your own choice of preferred music instead of dramatic garbage they put into shitty movies. Or because movies are ridiculously loud. Or because of a TV and a computer in the same room - one person watching TV, the other on the computer.
This should not be about monetization - that is neither the answer nor even correct. This simply should be done for a variety of reasons such as foreign language speakers who can *read* english will then be able to watch movies or you can...gasp...have closed captions for other languages so that movies can be broadcast around the globe! Movie available for 1 country vs movie available in the 8 most popular languages. Which do you think gets more views (and thus more profit).
To act like there's somehow only a negative cost is to be completely and utterly dishonest to the fact that there's an enormous profit potential. This isn't a cost of business, this is an investment to make an obvious profit. Quit being intellectually dishonest.
I suspect the core issue is not whether or not providing CCs is a good idea (it is for many of the reasons you listed) but whether or not a company should be compelled under force of arms (all government for is ultimately force of arms) to provide such at their expense with exactly zero compensation. To consumers who care about the service enough to compel the company to provide it but oddly not enough to compensate them for providing it.
I am blind in one eye from childhood. I can not see anything in 3D. If a movie theater shows a 3D move must they also provide the same movie in 2D?
By the logic used in the lawsuit, yes. And not only that but they should provide it at the same time and at no additional cost. (Sorry about your eye)
well we could take it to the next logical step, What about blind people? we need to make sure blind people can access the internet and "watch" their videos as well!
I am all for "fair access" but if the CC was not made available by the content maker, than how is it netflixes fault for not having them? Shouldnt the judge be charging the movie maker for not providing CC to begin with??
QFT.
Also, and I'm speaking as someone who has a loved one who uses CC from time to time, my huge problem with this kind of thing is that the National Association of Deaf People are in essence demanding that Netflix provide a seriously expensive service at no charge. I would be willing to bet that they would also have thrown a holy snit fit if they were asked to pay one red cent to provide this extremely expensive service.
As to the idea that these kinds of things should just be considered "another cost of business" it really shouldn't. If you want service X, then you should pay for it and not use the power of government to force someone to give it to you for free. As has been said, where do we draw the line?
Sad that even Google is afraid to take on the iPad in it's territory. Almost all the 10" Android tablets have seen dismal sales, HP Touchpad was sold in a firesale,
Playbook's having a tough time and Amazon and Google are forced to play in the sub $200 territory. All of these devices are oriented towards only consumption. Maybe Microsoft Surface will get traction by doubling as a device that you can actually do some light work on, but lets see what price it launches at.
Yeah, the Asus Transformers sold so badly that they could barely keep them in stock at launch. Damn those poor sales!
I imagine Google went for the ~$200 territory as there are far far more people who will spend that on a tablet who don't already have one of those "poor selling" Android tablets or iPads. I'd be willing to bet that the $400+ tablet market is nearly saturated. So, where would you go? The high end of cost dominated by people who tend to choose style over power and flexibility, or the part of the market that would be interested in your product and don't already have a tablet.
To hire someone who's labor cannot justify the "living wage" is to engage in charity and many small business owners cannot afford to be that generous.
if you cannot afford to run your business without slave labor then society should not allow your business to remain open.
This is going to wreck my mods.. but...
How in the hell did this get a +5 Insightful?! What in the hell is insightful about calling a employee a slave? Get a damned clue. Person A offers to pay Person B a particular wage to do a job. The wage is determined by market forces including the size of the appropriate labor pool and Person B's qualifications to do said job. Person B can accept or not.
Not paying a "living wage" does not make the employee a slave or anything even remotely like it. Slaves don't have choices. Slaves can't improve their skills and move up. Slaves can't gain experience and then ask for improved pay.
Don't fucking conflate these two things. It is a dire insult to all those who have been slaves and those who still are.
In breaking news, sales figures are more meaningful than some study of unknown quality. When it comes to sales, iPad still blows away the competition by a large margin.
Without bothering with a reference....
Is that when one compares iPad Vs Individual Android Tablet Model or iPad Vs Android Tablets.
One is a meaningful comparison, the other isn't as useful.
Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.
Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? Yes.
Does the UK have an extradition arrangement with Sweden (in this case as part of the EU I would figure)? Yes.
Would the Swedish legal system treat him appropriately from the UK perspective if convicted of this particular crime, and will he get appropriate process? Yes, but that's why they have an extradition agreement at all.
At that point he's just delaying the inevitable. If not, then you'd have to kick one or both of Sweden and the UK out of the EU for not upholding the same basic sets of rights and rules. The question of whether or not the US is fabricating the whole thing can be addressed fairly in sweden (at least the UK would consider it fair).
Additionally, why do we care? Is it just because this egomaniac founded/was part of Wikileaks and this is Slashdot so therefore we care about anything connected to Wikileaks?
NONSENSE! Shut your face! With nothing but stupid "social funds" we would cure nothing but the dumbest stupidest things like malaria which only kills a few million people a year. How the hell would we ever have enough "social funds" to cure the important things like flaccid penises and hair loss that affects millions of very rich people? HOW? You ever stop to think before you open your stupid ape mouth?
Sheesh, the nerve on some people!
Huh... and where did all the money that is being spent to cure malaria come from?
I live in a metro area of half a million, and since the demise of Circuit City and CompUSA, when it comes to new-hardware-in-hand-today, the only options are: Best Buy, Office Depot/Max, the Apple Store, Radio Shack, and the electronics sections of the grocery/department stores.
From time to time I drive past the little shop where I bought the printer, modem, and other gear I needed to go with the C64 I got for high school graduation back in '83. Last I looked it was a tattoo studio. The days of the local computer shop are gone. {sigh}
From time to time I go to China. When I am there, there are things I miss about here. When I get back here, one of the biggest things I miss about there is the mindnumbing number of places to buy electronics. It is nearly the complete opposite of here. Here, the in-person market is completely dominated by a handful of big box stores with limited selection. There, the big boxes are just another player in the already established market of thriving smaller sellers. Part of that probably comes from the ability to literally walk to the factory where the stuff is made. In any case, I'm not sure it was ever that way here and certainly hasn't been for a long time.
The last time I saw something like that here was back when they still had "Computer Shows". Haven't seen one of those in years.
Except as the post to which you blindly replied pointed out, California is a better place to live and work than Texas is.
Except for the losers who can't even make it in California. Some of them do move to Texas. California is huge, the economy overall sucks, and some of the losers will move to Texas, among other places. Meanwhile, Texas losers move to California. The jobseekers mean nothing about where they came from. What is meaningful is that California's doing great, except that some of its people refuse to pay in taxes what they consume in services.
Those people are Republicans, and are more like Texans than they are different.
Except that it isn't... High state income taxes.. high CITY income taxes.. Yet, they still manage to spend far more money than they rake in. Odd that Texas doesn't have that problem. If your definition is going broke and choking on regulations, then yes, California is doing great and is clearly the place to live. On the other hand if your definition of doing great doesn't include such "features" then not so much. Having lived in California for a few years, I can say you would have a hard time paying me enough money to live there again.
Unemployed, or underpaid? Tough choice...
Only if you're cool with living off others. Otherwise, it's underpaid or sucking off others. Whatever floats your boat though...
I've got friends there that are worried about Californians coming to Texas for the jobs, and then trying to turn Texas into California.
You mean, a place with high-paying jobs that offer health-insurance, as well as some idea that just dumping crap into the environment might be a bad idea? That might actually be an improvement.
In the meantime, keep your paranoia to yourself.
It is not at all an unreasonable concern that people will vote for crap, California, and then when that place turns into the crap the voted for they go somewhere else and upon arrival they continue to vote for crap. Paranoia it isn't.
Blah blah blah, the gun rights advocates, or "gun nuts" are constantly going on about the need to protect themselves, about home invasions, and robberies, and race war.
I grew up in inner-city Chicago, and have traveled in all kinds of dangerous urban settings, at all hours of the day and night, both in Chicago and other cities, unarmed, and the worst thing I've experienced was harsh language.
The problem with gun nuts is they're fearful people. They're afraid of imaginary dangers that are unlikely to happen. Then they get drunk and angry and shoot a friend or family member.
FWIW: I legally own a handgun, which I acquired as an adult after growing not being around guns. My experience is that handguns are a waste of time, and more dangerous to the owner and his/her family than useful. Rifles and shotguns on the other hand are worthwhile investments for hunting, and fighting in the civil war against the Fascist Republicans.
Congratulations on projecting your experiences on to everyone else and making sweeping generalizations and accusations based upon them. The only thing missing was a penis issue reference so we'll have to deduct 10 points for that.
Handguns are by their nature the perfect self-defense weapon. Rifles and shotguns, though good things, are far more suited to offensive uses as you noted. I'm glad you've never been in a situation when you needed a handgun but that isn't the case for all of us. You might want to remember that not everyone has your experience and that you are not everyone, okay?
I don't see why it's so bad if the ACLU mostly just let's the NRA handle that one.
The problem is that the NRA is really not just a gun lobby. They also heavily promote the republican party when they're really part of the same problem — taking away our freedoms.
For better or worse I've always looked at that as more them promoting the people somewhat less likely to trample on their core issue. As a matter of general rule, with the usual block of salt added, Democrats are far far more likely to be at best luke warm on gun rights and tend to be somewhat to heavily anti-rights. Republicans tend to be luke warm to pro-rights (same block of salt). The NRA has backed Democrats who aren't anti-gun. There just aren't that many of them is all.
As an aside, I do generally agree with you that Republicans are part of the problem too.
When it comes to a presumption that IN THE FUTURE there will be a pension crisis, there is work done NOW to "solve" it for the current to-be-retired generation, decreasing benefit and increasing charges for the next generation. No proof, no standing, nothing at all needed, just the fearful statement "pension crisis looms". Yet when it comes to the pension of the next generation, which WILL be removed by the collapse of a society that can have retired old people drawing down a wage, where the costs of paying for avoiding that catastrophe will fall on the shoulders of the current-to-be-retired group, suddenly it's all "prove it! prove you have standing!".
Guess what: they are alive now, these kids. Unless you deliberately kill them off, they will inherit the country you leave behind.
THAT is their standing.
Big difference, a pension crisis can be proven with indisputable math. This many people pulling pensions times that many people paying into the system at such and such rate over such and such time. Pretty cut and dry. What these people are claiming is that something might happen at some undetermined point in the future based on science and systems which are not entirely understood. They are "demanding" that "something" be done immediately to stave off something which might happen. I'm sure you can see the substantial difference, no? As such, they can't prove harm in any way. Thus, no standing.
We don't elect representatives anymore, and we haven't since roughly 1970.
Our representatives are appointed for us by the electoral college, Diebold, and mass media.
People vote for whoever they are told to vote for, and if that doesn't work the some of the votes just "disappear", (or "extra" votes show up) and if THAT doesn't work, the system is allowed to simply ignore the votes altogether and appoint whoever they want for president.
You cannot seriously tell me that we elect our officials, in a world where the republication party can receive more VOTES in an particular region than there were VOTERS in that same region.
Judiciary is allowed to change existing laws, it's called case law and it has been part of our government from the very beginning. It was put in place as a protection from corrupt representatives.
LulWut?!
I might agree with you that people tend to vote for who they're told to vote for through Mass Media. It is to no small degree part of the reason the US has moved further and further Left since the beginning of the age of mass media. However, you also clearly don't understand how any of this works. What's more, case law doesn't change the law but merely offers interpretations of it. The law is still the law.
But no, giant conspiracy. Central Committees. Smokey rooms filled with Republicans (because clearly the Democrats would never ever do anything so underhanded) making backroom deals. Nothing to see here. Move along.
...that the contractors making bank here are controlled by republicans?
Of course they are. We all know that democrats are saints and only Evil Republicans like Obama would trample all over the Constitution and run up huge deficits. Only Evil Republicans would ever run guns into another country like that evil Republican AG Holder.
Oh.... wait....
You forgot to include the value of the items stolen by TSA employees, and items confiscated because they are alleged security hazards. Also, if you value the time of travelers as anything greater than zero, the needless delays imposed by TSA practices should be included.
Don't forget:
1. Lost value from people who no longer fly due to the TSA
2. Lost value from International tourism which no longer happens because of the TSA
3. Lost jobs from damage to the tourism industry
4. Projects canceled because of all of the above
And on and on and on and on...
End the TSA!
I meant that someone from that time period would be shocked that paper was not representative of or exchangeable for either gold or silver, as was the case back then. Bimetallism was what kept us going through the industrial revolution. Violent currency instability occurred when the government instated the Coinage Act of 1873, which demonetized silver (and put us on one currency that had no competition). When the government later issued the Sherman Silver Purchase Act - requiring the government to buy silver at monthly quotas for double the market price - the currency market was warped even more (since the government was required by this act to buy silver, those selling silver to the government took the tickets they were given in return and traded them for gold - the circus that ensued caused the Panic of 1893). Ultimately, even though the ratio of value was set by the government between the two metals, the availability of both options allowed currency instability to cause less of a volatile environment, and recovery tended to be quick.
Quite right across the board. I apologize for misunderstanding your intention. I regret that I read into it a certain bias given to me by the run of the mill commenter hereon. :)