Even though Mac market share grew 28% last year, Mac OS X profits didn't grow that much, and still only account for 20% of the company's revenue. If hardware accounted for the majority of their revenue, you'd see it here.
Apple states that 75% of their revenue comes from iOS related sales. They're lumping in iPhone hardware with App Store/iTunes purchases. But again, before the App Store, they had a market cap of 7 billion. After the App Store, they have a market cap of 309 billion.
Also consider that OS market share shows there are 3 times as many OS X devices out there as iOS devices. And those OS X devices are more expensive, with a higher profit margin.
So how exactly does the iOS division account for 75% of all their revenue with less hardware, and cheaper hardware?
Note that their massive growth really started in 2005. The iMac had nothing to do with it. In fact, there are rumors that they will completely drop Mac OS X and move all devices to iOS to shift more focus to App Store purchases.
Apple doesn't produce tons of products. And they became the industry giant relatively quickly in the past ten years, mainly through App Store purchases.
They make a profit on iPhone/iPad/iPod sales, but 30% of the top on all Apps, songs, movies, books, etc. is where it is at. And they don't need massive staff to collect money on other people's products.
Yeah, instead of having to click on an icon to run a third-party app you'll now have to... er.... click on a tile? Swipe the page to the left and click on a tile? Not a huge detriment c.f. digging through the start menu or shuffling your window around so you can find the desktop icon.
That only works if the vendor releases an updated version specifically for Windows 8 that adds a tile. Given that 99% of the Windows software out there doesn't specifically support the Windows 7-specific features right now (such as jump lists), I'm going to suggest that at least 50% of Windows apps won't have a tile even 2 years after launch.
I don't think anybody will die of shock if ChromeOS gets dumped.
You clearly don't understand Google's strategy. Why did they write the browser in the first place? Why develop NaCl, V8, WebRTC, Spdy, etc? Android doesn't help businesses or the big enterprise market. Every small business that can't afford their own IT department could seriously benefit from ChromeOS devices (the Chromebooks, or the desktop) in a bundled hardware/software-as-a-service. No anti-virus cost or hassle. No administration. No backups. It just works, and you pay a small monthly fee that is a massive savings over the alternatives.
No, I'm arguing that what's good for Apple and Google isn't good for Microsoft.
And that is a foolish sentiment. The company doesn't matter.
The principle is that a touch interface works well on touch devices and desktop interfaces work well on desktop devices.
This is PRECISELY why iOS and Android devices are doing so well.
I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Your mouse has at least 3 buttons + a scroll wheel...
A standard mouse has 2. Mouse-wheels and the middle button certainly are becoming more common, but I wouldn't make my UI dependent on them. Asking hundreds of millions of PC users to suddenly learn keyboard+mouse combinations for a new UI just to have a "prettier" UI doesn't make much sense to me.
Maybe they got the memo that the ribbon sucks...
That doesn't change my point. Microsoft said they were committed to a new UI and a new direction, but never followed through with it. When Windows 7 rolled around, the new task bar was hyped. They wanted every developer to focus on taking advantage of the new task bar, such as pinning apps, jump lists, etc. Not only did most developers not support it, but most Microsoft apps don't follow support it. And this is a core Windows feature. Now Microsoft is throwing the task bar out the window. The point is that you can't expect Microsoft to guarantee they'll actually support this with all their apps.
But millions of other people spend their time shuffling between Office, Outlook and IE.
The fact that first-party apps are used commonly by a lot of people doesn't change the fact that this is actually a detriment to all third-party apps. One of the great strengths of Windows is that there are tons of Windows apps out there.
Google got caught with their pants down by the iPad coming along and making netbooks old hat.
Google was looking into the tablet/phone market for some time. And Android didn't happen overnight. The tablet/phone market, and the PC market is different. Google realizes that, which is precisely my point. And ChromeOS isn't necessarily about a Grandma-proof netbook. That is what most people mistakenly though, and then when Google made their announcement, it was about enterprise hardware/software-as-a-service plans. Both products have their places, and they shouldn't be married together. Apple realizes the same thing.
Plus, Apple and Google have phone/tablet OSs that people like and are successful in their own rights...
Microsoft has had tablet support since the XP days, but they just took their desktop UI and said use it on a tablet. They made the same mistake with early versions of Windows Mobile.
Apple and Google succeeded because they realized that you use touch interfaces on touch devices, and desktop interfaces on desktop devices. You're arguing that it is a good thing Microsoft is forcing a touch interface on a desktop. Microsoft sees that touch is popular, but they're still missing the bigger picture.
They use a heavily modified version of the Linux kernel. It is based on Linux as much as Windows Mobile was based on the Windows kernel. So neither were completely from the ground up.
WP7 was a massive rewrite of WP6.5, but they spent 3 years on it. And their initial release was still missing a lot of core functionality you expect from a mobile OS.
My problem with WP7 isn't necessarily the quality or feature set. It looks nice. My problem is that they're late to the game. They can pay Nokia a small fortune and advertise it like mad, but I just don't believe it will be able to compete with the new Blackberry OS, iOS and Android.
If you server only needs core Windows services (AD, file sharing, IIS, etc) that is fine, but if you need it to run any third-party app, then you're screwed.
And if all you're doing is directory services, file server, web server, etc. then you can do the same with Linux on ARM today.
We're now seeing examples where DNA can be built using arsenic. The principle still applies that life on Earth is believed to be a response to the environment on Earth. Why wouldn't that be true elsewhere?
Our entire precept of what is required for life to exist could be flawed based upon our limited perspective.
I can't see any reason why the interface shouldn't work with a mouse or with gestures on a decent size (MacBook-style) trackpad. Its probably easier to take a touch-centric interface and map it on to mouse actions than it would be to make a mouse-centric interface usable with touch.
I believe the Windows Mobile 7 interface requires multi-touch gestures in areas. And Windows 7 touch uses multi-touch gestures. Your mouse can't replicate multi-touch.
More likely, they'll go to the Word tile or the Excel tile - and by the time Win8 launches there will probably be an "Office 201x" suite that integrates properly with the tile-based interface, so you'll get a nice "preview" tile. My experience is that non-techie Windows users don't use the desktop much anyway, and live in full-screened Office apps (Unlike OS X, Windows' existing MDI structure promotes this style of working).
Don't be so sure. In 2003 they said all first party Microsoft apps would start using the Ribbon. It is 2011, and that still hasn't happened, though apparently that is still the goal. Apps like mspaint in Windows 7 did finally get the Ribbon, but not every app did.
Also, different divisions in Microsoft not only don't talk to each other. They're not allowed to talk to each other. A Microsoft developer complained to me once how the Exchange team is part of a server division and they can't talk to the Office division developing Outlook. They both find out each other's features and what they need to interfact with each other about the same time the public does.
There is a very good chance the Office division didn't know Windows was going this route. And while Office may be the first set of apps to get tiles, not all apps will. And I don't simply use first-party Microsoft apps. I imagine most apps won't have tiles.
Two years after Windows 7's launch, and most Windows apps don't support jump lists.
As for it looking interesting, it is interesting as a tablet/phone UI. It was interesting when it first started as the Zune UI. As a desktop UI, it is a terrible idea.
Google has been asked why they have ChromeOS and Android as seperate projects, and they've said ChromeOS wouldn't be appropriate on a phone, or a touch tablet. And neither would Android be appropriate on a desktop. Apple keeps seperate UIs for touch and non-touch. There is a reason.
How many times now have we found life in extreme conditions where we were convinced life couldn't exist?
And given that we believe life adapted to the environment on Earth (early organisms didn't even breathe oxygen) then why we are so convinced that theoretical life in the universe must conform to the rules on Earth?
I don't want to touch my monitor on my desktop and get fingerprints all over it. This is great for tablets and phones, but making this the default UI for your desktop is nothing short of asinine.
This is a pretty interface, but most real work will require skipping this whole Start grid and going to the desktop tile. Why force hundreds of millions of PC users to jump through extra hoops to perform the same tasks? Wait, Vista did that as well, and they refused to revert any of those usability regressions with Windows 7.
A pretty interface isn't necessarily a productive one.
And Windows 8 ARM might as well be dead on arrival given that it can't run x86 apps.
"The question is, why don't we allow this subject (the Holocaust) to be examined further... It is incorrect to force only one view on the rest of the world." He said at other times he doesn't believe the Holocaust is real, or that it took place. Again, here is another. "They (the Western powers) launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews. If as you claim the Holocaust is true, why can a study not be allowed." He later gave a speech entitled "Holocaust, the Holy Lie of the West."
He takes it a step further and claims instead that Jews are the ones practicing genocide. "The Holocaust is a lie and the real Holocaust is happening to the Palestinians."
He also blamed Jews for 9/11. "No 'Zionists' were killed in the World Trade Center, because one day earlier they were told not to go to their workplace."
He routinely calls all Jews Zionists and refers to scenarios where Jews won't exist anymore. "If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilationWith Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists."
Even worse, he has been linked to financing terrorists to directly kill Jews. He speaks as if he has knowledge of the matter. "Don't be afraid of those Zionists. They are on the verge of death." And "this terrorist and criminal state (Israel) is backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by the Palestinians."
He speaks of the need to go after Jews. "They want the entire world. At their very first step, you must crush their step, crush their leg, so that they do not dare to invade the Islamic lands."
He has said repeatedly that he will not rest until Israel is destroyed. Some say his intent is merely to see Israel dissolve and the land belong solely to Palestinians. But all his other repeated statements over the years suggest more. "Israel must be wiped off the map."
"Resistance is the only way to defeat the Zionists and their masters."
Do I need to provide more quotes? One of us is certainly lying. That much is sure.
Distributing information is usually called "speech". As in "freedom of..."
I agree with you that the DMCA is unconstitutional, but no one has fought it in court yet. Until that day, it does stand as a law.
Claim contradicts previously accepted facts. He broke the DMCA while in Russia. He then gave a speech in the US.
Distributing that information on US soil is a breach of the DMCA.
Thailand is not seeking extradition either. The guy went to Thailand, just as Dmitry Sklyarov went to the US.
I was responding to Splab, who claimed the US tries to extradite people for actions outside the US that are legal there, but illegal in the US. Please read the thread if you're going to comment.
Go to 3:49 in the video, and you see they request permission to engage the moment they see an armed group in the militarized zone. And they are given permission precisely because people shouldn't be walking around armed there. That right there is basically the end of the argument. Anyone who carries a rifle into a militarized zone better prepare to get shot at.
At 4:08 in the video, you see the RPG set on the ground and then picked up. It is vastly longer than any camera lens I've ever seen in my life. And people don't throw expensive camera lens bags on the ground like that. Nice lenses are fucking expensive and fragile. Third-party reports also mention the RPG.
Want even more proof? ASSANGE HIMSELF ADMITS THERE WAS AN RPG.
Not a single news article I've even seen on the subject confirms children were in the van, or that any children were killed. And if they were, then the kids were killed by irresponsible adults putting them in the line of fire.
Do you see any mention of kids? That's because there weren't any kids. I just did Google News searches for the past few minutes. Not ONE SINGLE MENTION OF DEAD KIDS IN ANY OF THE NEWS REPORTS.
Anytime kids or medical staff were killed in incidents like this, it was reported on. Either every single news outlet who covered the incident all lied in this one exception, or WikiLeaks lied in their editorializing of the video.
But let's say for the sake of argument the unmarked van was medical staff, and they randomly keep kids in their vans (which makes zero sense), the moment they go into an active combat zone and pick up people being shot at, they're endangering everyone in that van.
Again, not a soul has filed war crimes charges, because nothing wrong was done.
There weren't children in the helicopter. There were trained soldiers. Their job during wartime is to kill their enemy. Their life, and the lives of people around them depend on their ability to kill their enemy before the enemy kills them. It may seem wrong and jarring for people to hear them celebrate the fact that they shot people, or ask permission to open fire again, but I suspect you haven't received military training. I suspect you don't know what it is like to serve your country and risk your life for others.
That is why states have been passing laws that running such sex tourism businesses in the United States is illegal because people were using this as a means to skirt the law.
There is a vast difference between your statement, and Bin Laden's. Namely, Bin Laden carried out 4 terrorist attacks against the US and murdered thousands of people. Insisting that your statement is the same as Bin Laden's is patently idiotic.
You are apparently correct that there wasn't a prolonged firefight or a human shield. Every major news outlet was reporting that on May 2nd, but apparently the Pentagon changed their tune later. I hadn't seen the later stories. I do find it funny however that you're bitching about fact checking and then claiming the US is responsible for a bunch of ridiculous bullshit.
It doesn't change the fact that the US was at war with Al Qaeda. That is why they killed Bin Laden.
Thanks. That looks like a pretty valid case of the US federal government overstepping their bounds.
We don't know all the details. I don't know if they had any US holdings, or operating in the US in any way. But the US doesn't have global jurisdiction over the internet, despite acting like they do as of late.
I watched the leaked "collateral murder" video. I can only assume you're referring to this. I watched it twice when it initially leaked. This is from recollection.
A group is walking through a militarized zone while openly carrying rifles. One ducks around a corner and points an RPG at a helicopter. I've heard the repeated claims that there was no RPG, and that this was a camera. Earlier in the video you see the journalist and his camera over his shoulder. The camera and RPG and very different in size. An RPG was pointed at the helicopter.
The crew in the helicopter do not act initially, despite the fact that there is an RPG pointed at them. They call back and await orders. Only when the orders are clearly given do they engage. They lay down heavy gunfire. When it appears that everyone is down, they stop. Then they're waiting for ground troops to come in and grab the bodies for identification. They see a few crawling, and do not immediately fire again. They are told not to fire unless they grab weapons.
A van pulls up, and attempts to move people from the scene. They are given permission to open fire on the van.
There was a journalist in the group. He was a civilian. That is clear. He was traveling with an armed group in a militarized zone who pointed weapons at the US troops.
Given that the insurgents don't wear uniforms, the line between civilian and combatant isn't clear. If you see an armed group where they aren't supposed to be, and they point a weapon at a US helicopter, then they have every right to open fire. That isn't murder. You'll note that the UN hasn't ripped the US over the incident. And no one around the globe has filed murder or war crime charges.
If the video did display wanton murder, then Bradley Manning's situation would be a different one.
But why let facts get in the way? If you want to rip the US and hate the US government, then let confirmation bias override facts.
Not to mention COUNTLESS military documents were leaked. Endangering the lives of others when you're not exposing any corruption isn't heroic.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though Mac market share grew 28% last year, Mac OS X profits didn't grow that much, and still only account for 20% of the company's revenue. If hardware accounted for the majority of their revenue, you'd see it here.
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-earns-3-5-times-as-much-profit-on-ios-and-os-x-than-microsoft-does-on-windows/93282
Apple states that 75% of their revenue comes from iOS related sales. They're lumping in iPhone hardware with App Store/iTunes purchases. But again, before the App Store, they had a market cap of 7 billion. After the App Store, they have a market cap of 309 billion.
Also consider that OS market share shows there are 3 times as many OS X devices out there as iOS devices. And those OS X devices are more expensive, with a higher profit margin.
So how exactly does the iOS division account for 75% of all their revenue with less hardware, and cheaper hardware?
Frankly, you're just wrong.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
When Apple made their massive resurgence with Job's new iMac and Macbook line, they spiked at 7 billion market cap.
When Apple started collecting 30% of all music, book, movie, and app purchases, they skyrocketed to over 300 billion market cap.
Jobs said publicly that iOS related sales accounts for the vast majority of their revenue.
Steve Jobs has liver disease and pancreatic cancer. The weight loss is probably due to the treatments he has to undertake.
App Store purchases started a few years ago, but Apple launched the iPod and iTunes about 10 years ago.
And really, it was just the past few years they exploded. Look at this:
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple_(AAPL)/Data/Market_Capitalization/2001/Q2
Note that their massive growth really started in 2005. The iMac had nothing to do with it. In fact, there are rumors that they will completely drop Mac OS X and move all devices to iOS to shift more focus to App Store purchases.
Apple doesn't produce tons of products. And they became the industry giant relatively quickly in the past ten years, mainly through App Store purchases.
They make a profit on iPhone/iPad/iPod sales, but 30% of the top on all Apps, songs, movies, books, etc. is where it is at. And they don't need massive staff to collect money on other people's products.
The Jonesville compound drank Flavor Aid. Yet everyone always associates this with Kool-Aid because no one likes Flavor Aid.
Flavor Aid deserves to be associated with arsenic. Give them the credit they deserve!
In that video he does not look good.
Yeah, instead of having to click on an icon to run a third-party app you'll now have to... er.... click on a tile? Swipe the page to the left and click on a tile? Not a huge detriment c.f. digging through the start menu or shuffling your window around so you can find the desktop icon.
That only works if the vendor releases an updated version specifically for Windows 8 that adds a tile. Given that 99% of the Windows software out there doesn't specifically support the Windows 7-specific features right now (such as jump lists), I'm going to suggest that at least 50% of Windows apps won't have a tile even 2 years after launch.
I don't think anybody will die of shock if ChromeOS gets dumped.
You clearly don't understand Google's strategy. Why did they write the browser in the first place? Why develop NaCl, V8, WebRTC, Spdy, etc? Android doesn't help businesses or the big enterprise market. Every small business that can't afford their own IT department could seriously benefit from ChromeOS devices (the Chromebooks, or the desktop) in a bundled hardware/software-as-a-service. No anti-virus cost or hassle. No administration. No backups. It just works, and you pay a small monthly fee that is a massive savings over the alternatives.
No, I'm arguing that what's good for Apple and Google isn't good for Microsoft.
And that is a foolish sentiment. The company doesn't matter.
The principle is that a touch interface works well on touch devices and desktop interfaces work well on desktop devices.
This is PRECISELY why iOS and Android devices are doing so well.
I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Your mouse has at least 3 buttons + a scroll wheel...
A standard mouse has 2. Mouse-wheels and the middle button certainly are becoming more common, but I wouldn't make my UI dependent on them. Asking hundreds of millions of PC users to suddenly learn keyboard+mouse combinations for a new UI just to have a "prettier" UI doesn't make much sense to me.
Maybe they got the memo that the ribbon sucks...
That doesn't change my point. Microsoft said they were committed to a new UI and a new direction, but never followed through with it. When Windows 7 rolled around, the new task bar was hyped. They wanted every developer to focus on taking advantage of the new task bar, such as pinning apps, jump lists, etc. Not only did most developers not support it, but most Microsoft apps don't follow support it. And this is a core Windows feature. Now Microsoft is throwing the task bar out the window. The point is that you can't expect Microsoft to guarantee they'll actually support this with all their apps.
But millions of other people spend their time shuffling between Office, Outlook and IE.
The fact that first-party apps are used commonly by a lot of people doesn't change the fact that this is actually a detriment to all third-party apps. One of the great strengths of Windows is that there are tons of Windows apps out there.
Google got caught with their pants down by the iPad coming along and making netbooks old hat.
Google was looking into the tablet/phone market for some time. And Android didn't happen overnight. The tablet/phone market, and the PC market is different. Google realizes that, which is precisely my point. And ChromeOS isn't necessarily about a Grandma-proof netbook. That is what most people mistakenly though, and then when Google made their announcement, it was about enterprise hardware/software-as-a-service plans. Both products have their places, and they shouldn't be married together. Apple realizes the same thing.
Plus, Apple and Google have phone/tablet OSs that people like and are successful in their own rights...
Microsoft has had tablet support since the XP days, but they just took their desktop UI and said use it on a tablet. They made the same mistake with early versions of Windows Mobile.
Apple and Google succeeded because they realized that you use touch interfaces on touch devices, and desktop interfaces on desktop devices. You're arguing that it is a good thing Microsoft is forcing a touch interface on a desktop. Microsoft sees that touch is popular, but they're still missing the bigger picture.
They use a heavily modified version of the Linux kernel. It is based on Linux as much as Windows Mobile was based on the Windows kernel. So neither were completely from the ground up.
WP7 was a massive rewrite of WP6.5, but they spent 3 years on it. And their initial release was still missing a lot of core functionality you expect from a mobile OS.
My problem with WP7 isn't necessarily the quality or feature set. It looks nice. My problem is that they're late to the game. They can pay Nokia a small fortune and advertise it like mad, but I just don't believe it will be able to compete with the new Blackberry OS, iOS and Android.
Porting to new architecture is not simply a matter of recompiling.
And how many developers have ported to 64-bit so far? Microsoft has only been pushing that for the past 8 years and can't get developers on board.
ARM porting is harder than porting to 64-bit.
If you server only needs core Windows services (AD, file sharing, IIS, etc) that is fine, but if you need it to run any third-party app, then you're screwed.
And if all you're doing is directory services, file server, web server, etc. then you can do the same with Linux on ARM today.
We're now seeing examples where DNA can be built using arsenic. The principle still applies that life on Earth is believed to be a response to the environment on Earth. Why wouldn't that be true elsewhere?
Our entire precept of what is required for life to exist could be flawed based upon our limited perspective.
I can't see any reason why the interface shouldn't work with a mouse or with gestures on a decent size (MacBook-style) trackpad. Its probably easier to take a touch-centric interface and map it on to mouse actions than it would be to make a mouse-centric interface usable with touch.
I believe the Windows Mobile 7 interface requires multi-touch gestures in areas. And Windows 7 touch uses multi-touch gestures. Your mouse can't replicate multi-touch.
More likely, they'll go to the Word tile or the Excel tile - and by the time Win8 launches there will probably be an "Office 201x" suite that integrates properly with the tile-based interface, so you'll get a nice "preview" tile. My experience is that non-techie Windows users don't use the desktop much anyway, and live in full-screened Office apps (Unlike OS X, Windows' existing MDI structure promotes this style of working).
Don't be so sure. In 2003 they said all first party Microsoft apps would start using the Ribbon. It is 2011, and that still hasn't happened, though apparently that is still the goal. Apps like mspaint in Windows 7 did finally get the Ribbon, but not every app did.
Also, different divisions in Microsoft not only don't talk to each other. They're not allowed to talk to each other. A Microsoft developer complained to me once how the Exchange team is part of a server division and they can't talk to the Office division developing Outlook. They both find out each other's features and what they need to interfact with each other about the same time the public does.
There is a very good chance the Office division didn't know Windows was going this route. And while Office may be the first set of apps to get tiles, not all apps will. And I don't simply use first-party Microsoft apps. I imagine most apps won't have tiles.
Two years after Windows 7's launch, and most Windows apps don't support jump lists.
As for it looking interesting, it is interesting as a tablet/phone UI. It was interesting when it first started as the Zune UI. As a desktop UI, it is a terrible idea.
Google has been asked why they have ChromeOS and Android as seperate projects, and they've said ChromeOS wouldn't be appropriate on a phone, or a touch tablet. And neither would Android be appropriate on a desktop. Apple keeps seperate UIs for touch and non-touch. There is a reason.
How many times now have we found life in extreme conditions where we were convinced life couldn't exist?
And given that we believe life adapted to the environment on Earth (early organisms didn't even breathe oxygen) then why we are so convinced that theoretical life in the universe must conform to the rules on Earth?
I hate having this as the default UI, but there are a lot of people who like the Metro look.
On the Zune it had darker colors, but this is pretty close to what you see on Windows Mobile 7 right now.
I don't want to touch my monitor on my desktop and get fingerprints all over it. This is great for tablets and phones, but making this the default UI for your desktop is nothing short of asinine.
This is a pretty interface, but most real work will require skipping this whole Start grid and going to the desktop tile. Why force hundreds of millions of PC users to jump through extra hoops to perform the same tasks? Wait, Vista did that as well, and they refused to revert any of those usability regressions with Windows 7.
A pretty interface isn't necessarily a productive one.
And Windows 8 ARM might as well be dead on arrival given that it can't run x86 apps.
Ahmadinejad: "The Jews only look human."
"The question is, why don't we allow this subject (the Holocaust) to be examined further... It is incorrect to force only one view on the rest of the world." He said at other times he doesn't believe the Holocaust is real, or that it took place. Again, here is another. "They (the Western powers) launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews. If as you claim the Holocaust is true, why can a study not be allowed." He later gave a speech entitled "Holocaust, the Holy Lie of the West."
He takes it a step further and claims instead that Jews are the ones practicing genocide. "The Holocaust is a lie and the real Holocaust is happening to the Palestinians."
He also blamed Jews for 9/11. "No 'Zionists' were killed in the World Trade Center, because one day earlier they were told not to go to their workplace."
He routinely calls all Jews Zionists and refers to scenarios where Jews won't exist anymore. "If the Zionist regime wants to repeat its past mistakes, this will constitute its demise and annihilationWith Allah's help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists."
Even worse, he has been linked to financing terrorists to directly kill Jews. He speaks as if he has knowledge of the matter. "Don't be afraid of those Zionists. They are on the verge of death." And "this terrorist and criminal state (Israel) is backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by the Palestinians."
He speaks of the need to go after Jews. "They want the entire world. At their very first step, you must crush their step, crush their leg, so that they do not dare to invade the Islamic lands."
He has said repeatedly that he will not rest until Israel is destroyed. Some say his intent is merely to see Israel dissolve and the land belong solely to Palestinians. But all his other repeated statements over the years suggest more. "Israel must be wiped off the map."
"Resistance is the only way to defeat the Zionists and their masters."
Do I need to provide more quotes? One of us is certainly lying. That much is sure.
Distributing information is usually called "speech". As in "freedom of..."
I agree with you that the DMCA is unconstitutional, but no one has fought it in court yet. Until that day, it does stand as a law.
Claim contradicts previously accepted facts. He broke the DMCA while in Russia. He then gave a speech in the US.
Distributing that information on US soil is a breach of the DMCA.
Thailand is not seeking extradition either. The guy went to Thailand, just as Dmitry Sklyarov went to the US.
I was responding to Splab, who claimed the US tries to extradite people for actions outside the US that are legal there, but illegal in the US. Please read the thread if you're going to comment.
Go to 3:49 in the video, and you see they request permission to engage the moment they see an armed group in the militarized zone. And they are given permission precisely because people shouldn't be walking around armed there. That right there is basically the end of the argument. Anyone who carries a rifle into a militarized zone better prepare to get shot at.
At 4:08 in the video, you see the RPG set on the ground and then picked up. It is vastly longer than any camera lens I've ever seen in my life. And people don't throw expensive camera lens bags on the ground like that. Nice lenses are fucking expensive and fragile. Third-party reports also mention the RPG.
Want even more proof? ASSANGE HIMSELF ADMITS THERE WAS AN RPG.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/julian-assange/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-tells-colbert-per/
Not a single news article I've even seen on the subject confirms children were in the van, or that any children were killed. And if they were, then the kids were killed by irresponsible adults putting them in the line of fire.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/12/reuters.pressandpublishing
Do you see any mention of kids? That's because there weren't any kids. I just did Google News searches for the past few minutes. Not ONE SINGLE MENTION OF DEAD KIDS IN ANY OF THE NEWS REPORTS.
Anytime kids or medical staff were killed in incidents like this, it was reported on. Either every single news outlet who covered the incident all lied in this one exception, or WikiLeaks lied in their editorializing of the video.
But let's say for the sake of argument the unmarked van was medical staff, and they randomly keep kids in their vans (which makes zero sense), the moment they go into an active combat zone and pick up people being shot at, they're endangering everyone in that van.
Again, not a soul has filed war crimes charges, because nothing wrong was done.
There weren't children in the helicopter. There were trained soldiers. Their job during wartime is to kill their enemy. Their life, and the lives of people around them depend on their ability to kill their enemy before the enemy kills them. It may seem wrong and jarring for people to hear them celebrate the fact that they shot people, or ask permission to open fire again, but I suspect you haven't received military training. I suspect you don't know what it is like to serve your country and risk your life for others.
That is why states have been passing laws that running such sex tourism businesses in the United States is illegal because people were using this as a means to skirt the law.
There is a vast difference between your statement, and Bin Laden's. Namely, Bin Laden carried out 4 terrorist attacks against the US and murdered thousands of people. Insisting that your statement is the same as Bin Laden's is patently idiotic.
You are apparently correct that there wasn't a prolonged firefight or a human shield. Every major news outlet was reporting that on May 2nd, but apparently the Pentagon changed their tune later. I hadn't seen the later stories. I do find it funny however that you're bitching about fact checking and then claiming the US is responsible for a bunch of ridiculous bullshit.
It doesn't change the fact that the US was at war with Al Qaeda. That is why they killed Bin Laden.
Thanks. That looks like a pretty valid case of the US federal government overstepping their bounds.
We don't know all the details. I don't know if they had any US holdings, or operating in the US in any way. But the US doesn't have global jurisdiction over the internet, despite acting like they do as of late.
And yet they're letting him pursue nukes.
If the US just went after whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted, Ahmadinejad wouldn't be allowed to pursue nukes in the first place.
I watched the leaked "collateral murder" video. I can only assume you're referring to this. I watched it twice when it initially leaked. This is from recollection.
A group is walking through a militarized zone while openly carrying rifles. One ducks around a corner and points an RPG at a helicopter. I've heard the repeated claims that there was no RPG, and that this was a camera. Earlier in the video you see the journalist and his camera over his shoulder. The camera and RPG and very different in size. An RPG was pointed at the helicopter.
The crew in the helicopter do not act initially, despite the fact that there is an RPG pointed at them. They call back and await orders. Only when the orders are clearly given do they engage. They lay down heavy gunfire. When it appears that everyone is down, they stop. Then they're waiting for ground troops to come in and grab the bodies for identification. They see a few crawling, and do not immediately fire again. They are told not to fire unless they grab weapons.
A van pulls up, and attempts to move people from the scene. They are given permission to open fire on the van.
There was a journalist in the group. He was a civilian. That is clear. He was traveling with an armed group in a militarized zone who pointed weapons at the US troops.
Given that the insurgents don't wear uniforms, the line between civilian and combatant isn't clear. If you see an armed group where they aren't supposed to be, and they point a weapon at a US helicopter, then they have every right to open fire. That isn't murder. You'll note that the UN hasn't ripped the US over the incident. And no one around the globe has filed murder or war crime charges.
If the video did display wanton murder, then Bradley Manning's situation would be a different one.
But why let facts get in the way? If you want to rip the US and hate the US government, then let confirmation bias override facts.
Not to mention COUNTLESS military documents were leaked. Endangering the lives of others when you're not exposing any corruption isn't heroic.