Apple could very easily get away with this. Assuming AMD continues to make advances in their mobile chips, it would actually make perfect sense for Apple. Their users don't give a shit what CPU is inside, and Apple doesn't compete directly on price/performance. It also would be unlikely to prevent other vendors from using the chips. Apple *really* isn't a competitive threat on the desktop side IMO. The only time I see someone comparing an Apple box to a Dell/HP is when they're Linux users trying to decide if they want to make the jump to OSX. If Apple can eek out another 10% margin on their product, it would make a lot of business sense for them to at least consider it.
HP/Dell/et al. might consider Apple a threat on the desktop, but typically a user wants one experience or the other. We might all love to flame about how PC XYZ is cheaper with better specs than the Apple product, but for the average consumer it truly is about the "experience" of owning a Mac (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit). That experience isn't going to be duplicated buying from one of the big wintel boys.
They won't own any manufacturing facilities (I'm assuming you're talking about owning CPU FAB's). AMD spun off all their foundries into another company: Global Foundries. While they do maintain a 34% share of the newly formed company, it's not the same as Intel "owning" their own fabs.
Given that there was an ad just yesterday about how poorly the search results have gotten lately, I'm going to call bullshit. If someone out-googles google, and comes up with a superior search engine, advertisers will quickly flock to the up-and-coming. Bing currently has no issues competing. Partly because MS is dumping money into the problem, and partly because the search engine actually works as advertised.
If we allow this, it will effectively create yet another monopoly for those with the capital to be the highest bidder. I love google, but I also love knowing that they have to constantly be redefining themselves, or any college kid with a little bit of skill and luck can create competition from their dorm room. If the *next big thing* is so slow it's unusable because of the ISP's "preferential" treatment of those paying tariff's, it won't ever become the next big thing. And THAT will be yet another nail in the coffin of the downfall of mankind.
As others have pointed out, rising based on what? How do you know what the co2 and methane levels were 1000 years ago? 2000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? "Rising" is a relative term. When we can't predict the weather accurately three hours from now, how exactly am I supposed to believe they can tell me precisely what effect we're having on the environment? It would be one thing if we were dumping toxic waste into a stream and killing everything in site. But to claim on a grand scale that we're dramatically changing weather patterns has proven in the past to be absolute rubbish (global cooling in the 70's). As others have stated, with such a small sample set, claiming to have a definitive map of what's going on does a disservice to people studying our climate.
That's ridiculous. Items purchased at a garage sale are exempt from taxes unless the seller MAKES money, for the buyer there's no tax either way. If the poor person was the one making money, they'd get the money they still wouldn't be paying anything due to their tax bracket. As for services provided, that's on the person providing the service, not the purchaser. If the poor person is the one providing the service, they would get the money back. A "cashless" black market is also exempt from taxation. Nice try though!
Switzerland's top tax bracket is 40%+, so I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to get at. That we need higher taxes on the wealthy in America? I agree.
An individual that seeks to minimize his tax obligations, without question. I've never seen a poor person trying to lower his taxes, and I've never seen a healthy nation without a high tax rate. Little to no taxation for the rich is the recipe for a third world country, and nothing else. We don't need to become the next Mexico, thank you very much.
Yes. It's called common carrier status, and it's what gives ISP's the ability to not be responsible for what their users do. As soon as they start filtering traffic, they are no longer common carrier, and should be legally responsible for ANY wrongdoing of their users. They're busy trying to have their cake and eat it too though.
They're still selling the droid, I don't really see any conflict of interest. If they start releasing commercials stating how much better the iphone is than droid, you might have an axe to grind. Just because it's BETTER doesn't mean they can't still give consumers choice. I sell customers products that I think are inferior all day long for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes it's still the best fit even though overall it's an inferior product. Sometimes it's a better price. Sometimes, the customer just really wants something that isn't best for them. If they take my recommendation into consideration and still choose the path they want, I'm not going to walk away from a sale just because they made a bad choice... that would be pretty bad business practice.
You get special treatment by being allowed to make your money, and keep more of it than you would in any other country in this world. Not to mention, I'm sick of hearing the top 1% cry about their tax rate when it's a fraction of what it was historically when our country was 'booming".
His fans are also the ones who would willingly pay more than the book is worth if the kindle version were on sale for "name your price". I find it rather ironic you'd imply that they aren't willing to spend money when they're the primary source of funding for the entire endeavor.
Government regulation encouraged lenders not to be racist. NOTHING in ANY documentation forced any private firms to lend money to people unqualified. They came up with that brilliant plan all on their own. The *LACK* of government oversight in the people they were giving loans out to was the problem. NOT the fact that the government forced them to loan to both caucasians and non-caucasians alike.
Your keep spitting the same BS talking points that have been coming out of Limbaugh for years. Why don't you do what he couldn't: quote the regulation that CAUSED the meltdown. I'm pretty sure "greedy bankers who cashed out before it all fell apart" isn't listed in any formal document.
You shouldn't be running a "server" at home anyways. The internet was created so that you could buy services from large companies like your ISP. Running your own server at home is socialist. Think of the children!
My memory may be failing me, but this quote actually stuck in my head for just how idiotic he truly was screwing up such an easy saying. I believe he said:
Fool me one... shame on, shame on me. Fool me twice, fool me can't get fooled again.
It would seem to me that it's a bit counter-intuitive for a group who wishes to remain anonymous to give their information to these companies to let them know they're no longer willing to business because of their business practices.
Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet a good portion of anonymous is under the age of 18, and unable to have a Visa or MC, making "protest" rather irrelevant.
You setup co-ops to run fiber to every home, just like we had/have co-ops to run electricity to every home.
The government owns and maintains the "last mile", and third-parties can lease the lines. This will create true-competition, and remove the monopoly protections.
Nobody said you need broadband. However, if they upgrade the node, it means your price should drop dramatically since they can fit more people on a node, and you're consuming less of their resources.
So have co-ops lay fiber to every home, including in the middle of nowhere (you know, just like when large corporations used the same excuses you are to not wire every home in the US with electricity). Then the co-ops can have third-party ISP's like earthlink or speakeasy, or any number of smaller local players come along and lease the lines to provide service. If government owns the last mile, and leases out the lines to third parties with a conveniently placed aggregation point, we'll actually see real competition.
The FCC redefined it because the way our connections get used has changed. In 1990, there was no youtube, and 256k was a pretty damn decent connection. In 2010, when people want to stream Netflix in HD over the internet, 256k is about as useful as a dial-up modem. Queue it up on Monday so you can watch it on Friday!
It's why I get sick of people trying to say a certain amount of bandwidth "is enough". It's "enough" for the technology we have today. It is NOT "enough" for the technology of tomorrow. If you build it, people will find a way to take advantage of it.
$10,000,000 to upgrade sup's? Unless you were upgrading 100+ 6500's (which would make your campus larger than pretty much any major corporation in the US), your campus either sucks at negotiating, or your numbers are more than a bit off. You could buy a fleet of Nexus 7k's fully populated for less than that at LIST price.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple could very easily get away with this. Assuming AMD continues to make advances in their mobile chips, it would actually make perfect sense for Apple. Their users don't give a shit what CPU is inside, and Apple doesn't compete directly on price/performance. It also would be unlikely to prevent other vendors from using the chips. Apple *really* isn't a competitive threat on the desktop side IMO. The only time I see someone comparing an Apple box to a Dell/HP is when they're Linux users trying to decide if they want to make the jump to OSX. If Apple can eek out another 10% margin on their product, it would make a lot of business sense for them to at least consider it.
HP/Dell/et al. might consider Apple a threat on the desktop, but typically a user wants one experience or the other. We might all love to flame about how PC XYZ is cheaper with better specs than the Apple product, but for the average consumer it truly is about the "experience" of owning a Mac (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit). That experience isn't going to be duplicated buying from one of the big wintel boys.
They won't own any manufacturing facilities (I'm assuming you're talking about owning CPU FAB's). AMD spun off all their foundries into another company: Global Foundries. While they do maintain a 34% share of the newly formed company, it's not the same as Intel "owning" their own fabs.
Given that there was an ad just yesterday about how poorly the search results have gotten lately, I'm going to call bullshit. If someone out-googles google, and comes up with a superior search engine, advertisers will quickly flock to the up-and-coming. Bing currently has no issues competing. Partly because MS is dumping money into the problem, and partly because the search engine actually works as advertised.
If we allow this, it will effectively create yet another monopoly for those with the capital to be the highest bidder. I love google, but I also love knowing that they have to constantly be redefining themselves, or any college kid with a little bit of skill and luck can create competition from their dorm room. If the *next big thing* is so slow it's unusable because of the ISP's "preferential" treatment of those paying tariff's, it won't ever become the next big thing. And THAT will be yet another nail in the coffin of the downfall of mankind.
As others have pointed out, rising based on what? How do you know what the co2 and methane levels were 1000 years ago? 2000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? "Rising" is a relative term. When we can't predict the weather accurately three hours from now, how exactly am I supposed to believe they can tell me precisely what effect we're having on the environment? It would be one thing if we were dumping toxic waste into a stream and killing everything in site. But to claim on a grand scale that we're dramatically changing weather patterns has proven in the past to be absolute rubbish (global cooling in the 70's). As others have stated, with such a small sample set, claiming to have a definitive map of what's going on does a disservice to people studying our climate.
That's ridiculous. Items purchased at a garage sale are exempt from taxes unless the seller MAKES money, for the buyer there's no tax either way. If the poor person was the one making money, they'd get the money they still wouldn't be paying anything due to their tax bracket. As for services provided, that's on the person providing the service, not the purchaser. If the poor person is the one providing the service, they would get the money back. A "cashless" black market is also exempt from taxation. Nice try though!
Switzerland's top tax bracket is 40%+, so I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to get at. That we need higher taxes on the wealthy in America? I agree.
An individual that seeks to minimize his tax obligations, without question. I've never seen a poor person trying to lower his taxes, and I've never seen a healthy nation without a high tax rate. Little to no taxation for the rich is the recipe for a third world country, and nothing else. We don't need to become the next Mexico, thank you very much.
Yes. It's called common carrier status, and it's what gives ISP's the ability to not be responsible for what their users do. As soon as they start filtering traffic, they are no longer common carrier, and should be legally responsible for ANY wrongdoing of their users. They're busy trying to have their cake and eat it too though.
They're still selling the droid, I don't really see any conflict of interest. If they start releasing commercials stating how much better the iphone is than droid, you might have an axe to grind. Just because it's BETTER doesn't mean they can't still give consumers choice. I sell customers products that I think are inferior all day long for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes it's still the best fit even though overall it's an inferior product. Sometimes it's a better price. Sometimes, the customer just really wants something that isn't best for them. If they take my recommendation into consideration and still choose the path they want, I'm not going to walk away from a sale just because they made a bad choice... that would be pretty bad business practice.
Don't forget Monticello, MN.
You get special treatment by being allowed to make your money, and keep more of it than you would in any other country in this world. Not to mention, I'm sick of hearing the top 1% cry about their tax rate when it's a fraction of what it was historically when our country was 'booming".
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
His fans are also the ones who would willingly pay more than the book is worth if the kindle version were on sale for "name your price". I find it rather ironic you'd imply that they aren't willing to spend money when they're the primary source of funding for the entire endeavor.
Because, IIRC, the same company owns nearly all of the "other companies" in the same business.
Government regulation encouraged lenders not to be racist. NOTHING in ANY documentation forced any private firms to lend money to people unqualified. They came up with that brilliant plan all on their own. The *LACK* of government oversight in the people they were giving loans out to was the problem. NOT the fact that the government forced them to loan to both caucasians and non-caucasians alike.
Your keep spitting the same BS talking points that have been coming out of Limbaugh for years. Why don't you do what he couldn't: quote the regulation that CAUSED the meltdown. I'm pretty sure "greedy bankers who cashed out before it all fell apart" isn't listed in any formal document.
That's class warfare.
You shouldn't be running a "server" at home anyways. The internet was created so that you could buy services from large companies like your ISP. Running your own server at home is socialist. Think of the children!
My memory may be failing me, but this quote actually stuck in my head for just how idiotic he truly was screwing up such an easy saying. I believe he said:
Fool me one... shame on, shame on me. Fool me twice, fool me can't get fooled again.
It would seem to me that it's a bit counter-intuitive for a group who wishes to remain anonymous to give their information to these companies to let them know they're no longer willing to business because of their business practices.
Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet a good portion of anonymous is under the age of 18, and unable to have a Visa or MC, making "protest" rather irrelevant.
You setup co-ops to run fiber to every home, just like we had/have co-ops to run electricity to every home.
The government owns and maintains the "last mile", and third-parties can lease the lines. This will create true-competition, and remove the monopoly protections.
Nobody said you need broadband. However, if they upgrade the node, it means your price should drop dramatically since they can fit more people on a node, and you're consuming less of their resources.
But you're all socialist!
So have co-ops lay fiber to every home, including in the middle of nowhere (you know, just like when large corporations used the same excuses you are to not wire every home in the US with electricity). Then the co-ops can have third-party ISP's like earthlink or speakeasy, or any number of smaller local players come along and lease the lines to provide service. If government owns the last mile, and leases out the lines to third parties with a conveniently placed aggregation point, we'll actually see real competition.
The FCC redefined it because the way our connections get used has changed. In 1990, there was no youtube, and 256k was a pretty damn decent connection. In 2010, when people want to stream Netflix in HD over the internet, 256k is about as useful as a dial-up modem. Queue it up on Monday so you can watch it on Friday!
It's why I get sick of people trying to say a certain amount of bandwidth "is enough". It's "enough" for the technology we have today. It is NOT "enough" for the technology of tomorrow. If you build it, people will find a way to take advantage of it.
$10,000,000 to upgrade sup's? Unless you were upgrading 100+ 6500's (which would make your campus larger than pretty much any major corporation in the US), your campus either sucks at negotiating, or your numbers are more than a bit off. You could buy a fleet of Nexus 7k's fully populated for less than that at LIST price.