In Accounting, most computer hardware has a 2-3 year depreciation for a reason.
And that reason is mostly that 20 years ago the useful working lifetime for a PC before either a significant hardware failure or a cost-effective major upgrade actually was around 3 years.
However, that hasn't been true for at least a decade, with increasing reliability of hardware and reducing real world benefits to upgrading so often unless your hardware did already fail. I don't work with any accountants who would assume such a short lifetime for depreciation purposes today.
The IRS allows for a 5 year depreciation on computers and peripheral equipment. Therefore, companies use a 5 year depreciation on most computers and equipment.
So your complaint is Siri doesn't understand that you want to use military time?
Just for kicks, I pulled out my iPhone and said "Siri, set an alarm for noon" - hey, presto, I have an alarm set for noon. Then I asked Siri to set an alarm for 1:20pm, and that worked too.
When I tried "set an alarm for sixteen-thirty", it initially didn't work... but that is because my phone isn't on 24-hour time. When I enabled that (Settings -> Date & Time -> 24-Hour Time), that same directive worked perfectly.
You shouldn't have to that. Siri should have been able to make the proper adjustments. For example, I just tried this with Google Now, I said "okay Google set alarm for 2030" and Google Now responded with setting alarm for 8:30 pm. Siri should have been able to do something similar when you tried to setting the alarm using 24 hour format.
Why are you comparing these two companies? Netflix is a content provider. Comcast is a (cable and Internet) service provider. That's like comparing Amazon with the UPS.
Not entirely true. Comcast is a content provider via NBC Universal.
Even fruit drinks aren't as good as, well, eating the fruit involved because there's lots of nutrients you're losing out on that was in the pulp of the fruit, and besides, the pulp has carbs and fiber that help you feel 'full', which the juice alone will shoot through your system and not satiate you.
Well also they're talking about fruit drinks, not fruit juice. Whenever you see something labelled "fruit drink", it should trigger alarm bells and the question, "why aren't they calling it juice?"
Even things labelled "juice" sometimes have additives, including additional sugar. When it's labelled a "fruit drink", it means that they've doctored it so much and added so much sugar that they're not allowed to call it "juice" anymore. It's sort of like if you go to a mexican restaurant and the stuff they put in the tacos is referred to as something like, "beef-based taco filling." That should immediately make you question what that stuff is.
Actually, if a beverage is labeled as juice or to contain juice then the juice content must be displayed somewhere on the label ( 21 CFR 101.30(a). If a beverage is labeled as a fruit drink you can bet it has very little to no fruit juice.
It has been a huge mistake on Apple's part to so completely depend on these two products for sales. They have (or had) a window to move the Mac line along and provide another option besides Windows, but they will never be anything but a small corner of the market with their current Mac product line. Shame, because I've love some competition there.
To be fair, they tried with Mac product line for over 30 years. The Mac small market penetration is not from a lack of trying by Apple. Apple tried. Also, the global market for personal computers/laptops has been in the dumps for 6 years and doesn't look to be turning around anytime soon. So, I wouldn't expect Mac to gain market share (blame it on market forces) anytime soon. The iPhone killed their very profitable iPod business. However, Apple pay is a success and so is Apple TV, iTunes and Apple Market. Apple is doing okay in terms of product diversification.
He's lucky there wasn't an emergency and that his device did not interfere with a 911 call.
I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed and someone would have had to get the train to stop in the next station before calling for help. Yes this guy was being an idiot but lets not blow things out of proportion: life was indeed possible before the cell phone was invented and it was not significantly more dangerous.
What does that have to do with anything? Blocking cell phone calls this way puts the public at risk regardless of how things were done in the past. It's called progress. What a silly comment.
If the IOC wasn't corrupt, there should be one location for the Summer Olympics (it should be in Greece, where the ancient Olympics are held), and the Winter Olympics should be held in another location, one that is guaranteed to have snow. Throw a few hundred billion at each location; major airports, venues, hospitals, living facilities, and then it's just the cost of maintenance. No more shopping around for kickbacks for the winning society, and no more need for the IOC in its current form.
Do you think Greece with their major economic problem can afford to host the Summer Games every four years? The short answer is NO!
How many folks swim in the Hudson or the East River?
Actually, the Hudson river and East river is relatively clean considering the Hudson river is a major international shipping through-way because of its deep water ports and proximity to NYC. People do swim in the mouth of the Hudson river (Coney Island Beach), and every spring people take a swim in the East river. Every now and again healthy dolphins feed in those rivers. Favorably comparing "lagoa" (better known as lake cesspool) in Rio to the Hudson river is a grave insult to NY and NJ.
I was once part of an audio book venture that created a book reader app and and associated library application library that was specifically designed to be used by the blind and severely disabled. It actually met all its goals in regards to usability. So the company took it to the largest national organizations to get their seal of approval for it. The company was turned down by all of them because although application interface years ahead of any other application in regrades to the blind and severely disabled, their words, it did not accommodate the deaf. An audio book application that did not accommodate the deaf.
Sorry dude but your story sounds like an urban myth. I'm not buying it.
I miss iGoogle the most from that list. There are third party options that work (specifically I use igHome), but I liked iGoogle better.
I also miss the old version of Google Voice. At least it is still functional as part of Hangouts, but I like the simplicity of the Google Voice layout more than with Hangouts.
Yep, I missed iGoogle the most as well. I also miss Google toolbar for Firefox.
If it is a supermassive black hole with low tidal forces at the event horizon, how did it create mindbogglingly huge tidal waves on the first planet they visited?
The director explained they took some liberties. They used two different concepts to get their point across. For example, a supermassive black hole would not have caused the tidal wave on the first planet and the time dilation would not be as large as shown in the movie. The effects of the tidal wave on the first planet and huge time dilation is what you would expect from stellar black hole. Also, stellar black holes have huge tidal forces at the event horizon. Nolan admitted that the effects on the first planet is what you would expect from a stellar black hole and effects at the event horizon is from a supermassive black hole, and he did it that way in the interests of story telling.
I think it's still severe enough. If they want to bundle those apps as the default in Russia, they should be able to do so without losing the ability to bundle Google apps by default in other countries.
I disagree. I see no reason why Google should create exceptions. Phone manufacturers don't license Android on a per market basis. Android license covers the global market and if manufactures break the licensing agreement in one market then that should that be enough to invalidate the license to use Android in every market. Google can't have exclusions if they want users to have a uniform experience.
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh/inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
Google default engine is not baked into the phone and users can switch the default search engine to Bing if they like. That is easy to do. If you are going to jump on Google case because their apps are the default on their operation system then you should also take issue with (1) Apple whose services are the default on iOS and can't be changed. Not to mention, Apple generally doesn't allow third party apps that compete with their apps in the Apple Store. (2) Microsoft 8.1 operating system ships with Bing as the default search engine. (3) Amazon version of Android ships with Yahoo as the default search engine that can't be changed.
Google has never done that. If you are an Android phone manufacturer you can sell Windows phones as well. As a consumer you can change the search engine to Bing if you like; or if you prefer you can buy a phone that defaults to Bing. Manufacturers can and do sell tablets without the Google Play app store, or even with an alternative app store.
What Yandex seems to be claiming is that manufacturers are, in fact, strong-armed to decide whether they want to ship all their phones with Google Play, or none of them. They are specifically claiming that a manufacturer was prevented from entering into an agreement with them to pre-install Yandex software, because they want to ship phones in other countries with Play, and Google's terms for Play require that they ship it in all countries.
Except that isn't quite true. Google doesn't stop Android phone manufacturers from shipping phones with Yandex installed. What phone manufacturers can't do is ship Android phones that doesn't have Google Apps (i.e. Search, Play Store, Mail, Calendar, Music and Maps) as the default. They certainly can bundle Yandex apps with their Android phones providing those apps are not shipped as the default instead of Google apps. Look at all the apps that are bundled in Samsung TouchWiz and HTC Sense UI.
There was a time in the development of the universe where space and time itself essesntially expanded faster than the speed of light. It is pretty widely accepted physics. But this inflationary period after the big bang wasn't technically "faster" than light travel, because the definition of "faster" was bound up in the expansion of space and time.."
That is incorrect. Space and time never expanded faster than the speed of light. Particles in the early universe traveled at the speed of light. What is correct is that the speed of light in the early universe traveled faster that light currently does. Over time the speed of light slowed down.
We're now forty years after the first oil shock, and, for lack of a valid alternative, oil still runs 98% of transportation.
How come peak oil isn't listed?
The possible reason that oil was not mentioned is that (1) peak oil is a myth, and (2) the world will switch to an alternative to oil long before peak oil. The world's oil reserve is adequate to meet demand and every year the reserve increases in the form of shale oil. We are not going to see peak oil for the next 50+ years, if ever. Also with current technology, we can replace oil with bio-fuels (sure it will cost about $7 per gallon but Europe pays over $5 per gallon. So, $7 is doable) or natural gas. Converting a gasoline engine to run on bio-fuels or natural gas is easy to do. So, oil will not end civilization. At least not directly. However, if two nuclear superpowers get into a dust up over oil. That's another issue.
If I'm reading the article correctly, the information that says that ads in the Facebook style are far more effective than Google's comes from...a study by Facebook. Gee, that seems totally unbiased and could in no way be slanted by them to help them convince potential advertisers to sign up. All of this seems very bizarre after reading -- for years -- about how the Facebook ad model is so deeply flawed.
The reason why is that the average user spends more time on Facebook than on Google services. That means users spends more time viewing ads on Facebook than Google services. However, the author fails to mention Google + which has over 300 million monthly active users who spent an average time of 7 minutes using the service.
I like what Google and Apple are doing. Both companies are trying hard to diversify their products. Providing Google invest heavily in R&D and remain nimble relative to the competition then I don't see Google becoming the next Xerox or Eastman Kodak.
What most consumers can not be bothered to do is to read and understand what they are agreeing to in a purchase.
Rarely do customers get an opportunity to see much less read a product's Terms and Conditions before they buy the item. I can't think of any product that has their Terms & Conditions displayed or readily available to customers before purchase.
Vizio is a pretty solid brand... at least for their larger TVs. Decent contrast, good response time, and if you choose carefully, no Smart TV nastiness. Of course, we bought the Smart TV at the time, but it doesn't get in the way. The only way you'll see it is if you press a certain button. And personally, they did Smart TV right. If you need it, it's there and easy to access. If you don't want it, don't worry about it - out of mind, out of sight.
I wouldn't say Vizio doesn't engage in Smart TV nastiness. They are not as bad as LG and Samsung. I have an older Vizio E55 series smart TV, and one of features is that the TV can report to Vizio what TV channels you look at unless you disable the feature in settings.
You missed the point... again.
The "airport model" means that "normal" or base service is degraded into total uselessness, and you have to pay to add functionality until the service is no longer useless and/or intensely unpleasant. This may or may not be cheaper than what you had before... but you can't complain because you opened the door for a-la-carte pricing, which will inevitably be used to increase profits.
In the airport model, what normal or base services are degraded into uselessness? If cable companies and content distributors could increase profits using a-la-carte pricing model then those companies would have pushed a-la-carte pricing to consumers. They are not. Cable companies are fighting against the push for a-la-carte pricing and they are not doing so for consumers' benefit.
[First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.
I'm glad someone posted this before I did. This most definitely has zilch to do with Amendment #1. I'll bet money that any of Sony's documents and emails had all sorts of disclaimers added to them. It's those disclaimers that Sony will use to sue press organizations into oblivion if they dare print any of it.
While I'm no fan of Sony, I don't really see this ending well for the press.
They don't have to rely on disclaimers when going after the media in this case. Sony's information system was hacked and the contents in the information system were stolen. Therefore, Sony can sue, for copyright infringement, any medium that downloaded and/or published the hacked emails.
I am so tired of supporting CEOs that bet bonuses based on short term quarterly report results at the expense of the long term health of the company. I'd also like too support a company that is truly innovative vs. one that can't even design a product and instead, outsources the crappy design and manufacture. Give me a premium product and I'll pay a premium price. I realize not everyone wants this but dammit! Give us a choice!
As I have written earlier, short term profits and long term growth are not mutually exclusive events. Quarterly financial reports gives a snapshot into the operations of a company. Think of quarterly financial reports as a performance measurement. A bigger issue is tying CEO salaries to earnings but that is a different topic. If companies are not selling premium products at premium prices that means it's not profitable (or not profitable enough) to do so. I have news for you, companies love making money, and they would gladly sell you a premium product at premium prices if they will make a profit. For example, Samsung sells a 4K television for $100,000. That's is a premium product at a premium price. That is one example of a company selling a premium product that fulfills a need.
Having worked for 15 years in publicly traded companies, I cannot tell you how tired I am of the drumbeat of making our quarterly earnings. I have seen a very consistent and substantial focus on short-term profit to the detriment of long-term growth.
Short term profits and long term growth are not mutually exclusive events (taken from the first page of business 101). Think of quarterly earnings report as a performance gauge or review. Investors (for the most part) don't have access to a company's management or financial records; however, a company's quarterly and yearly financial statements give investors a view into the operations of the company. How are investors to know if a company is meeting goals or is financially stable if the company don't file quarterly financial reports? Would you invest your savings in a 401K plan if the plan don't supply you with yearly financial statements telling you how your investment is doing? I would bet you wouldn't; so, why do you think investors shouldn't do the same? Remember, investors have billions of dollars invested in publicly traded companies, and they need to know what is going on with the companies and financial statements (which includes earnings report) gives them this knowledge.
I would like to hear somebody explain logically why they think the behavior of other modern non-human species provides more insight into human behavior, than simply studying human behavior directly.
Because it gives insight about early human behavior. If violence is an innate part of chimps behavior that means violence was part of our direct ancestors behavior as well and can help to explain conflicts between racial groups, religious groups, ethnic groups, etc. Basically, it helps us understand the roots of our "we vs. they" mentality.
Slashdot Mirror
In Accounting, most computer hardware has a 2-3 year depreciation for a reason.
And that reason is mostly that 20 years ago the useful working lifetime for a PC before either a significant hardware failure or a cost-effective major upgrade actually was around 3 years.
However, that hasn't been true for at least a decade, with increasing reliability of hardware and reducing real world benefits to upgrading so often unless your hardware did already fail. I don't work with any accountants who would assume such a short lifetime for depreciation purposes today.
The IRS allows for a 5 year depreciation on computers and peripheral equipment. Therefore, companies use a 5 year depreciation on most computers and equipment.
So your complaint is Siri doesn't understand that you want to use military time?
Just for kicks, I pulled out my iPhone and said "Siri, set an alarm for noon" - hey, presto, I have an alarm set for noon. Then I asked Siri to set an alarm for 1:20pm, and that worked too.
When I tried "set an alarm for sixteen-thirty", it initially didn't work... but that is because my phone isn't on 24-hour time. When I enabled that (Settings -> Date & Time -> 24-Hour Time), that same directive worked perfectly.
You shouldn't have to that. Siri should have been able to make the proper adjustments. For example, I just tried this with Google Now, I said "okay Google set alarm for 2030" and Google Now responded with setting alarm for 8:30 pm. Siri should have been able to do something similar when you tried to setting the alarm using 24 hour format.
Why are you comparing these two companies? Netflix is a content provider. Comcast is a (cable and Internet) service provider. That's like comparing Amazon with the UPS.
Not entirely true. Comcast is a content provider via NBC Universal.
Even fruit drinks aren't as good as, well, eating the fruit involved because there's lots of nutrients you're losing out on that was in the pulp of the fruit, and besides, the pulp has carbs and fiber that help you feel 'full', which the juice alone will shoot through your system and not satiate you.
Well also they're talking about fruit drinks, not fruit juice. Whenever you see something labelled "fruit drink", it should trigger alarm bells and the question, "why aren't they calling it juice?"
Even things labelled "juice" sometimes have additives, including additional sugar. When it's labelled a "fruit drink", it means that they've doctored it so much and added so much sugar that they're not allowed to call it "juice" anymore. It's sort of like if you go to a mexican restaurant and the stuff they put in the tacos is referred to as something like, "beef-based taco filling." That should immediately make you question what that stuff is.
Actually, if a beverage is labeled as juice or to contain juice then the juice content must be displayed somewhere on the label ( 21 CFR 101.30(a). If a beverage is labeled as a fruit drink you can bet it has very little to no fruit juice.
It has been a huge mistake on Apple's part to so completely depend on these two products for sales. They have (or had) a window to move the Mac line along and provide another option besides Windows, but they will never be anything but a small corner of the market with their current Mac product line. Shame, because I've love some competition there.
To be fair, they tried with Mac product line for over 30 years. The Mac small market penetration is not from a lack of trying by Apple. Apple tried. Also, the global market for personal computers/laptops has been in the dumps for 6 years and doesn't look to be turning around anytime soon. So, I wouldn't expect Mac to gain market share (blame it on market forces) anytime soon. The iPhone killed their very profitable iPod business. However, Apple pay is a success and so is Apple TV, iTunes and Apple Market. Apple is doing okay in terms of product diversification.
He's lucky there wasn't an emergency and that his device did not interfere with a 911 call.
I guess I was just lucky to survive the dark ages before mobiles existed and someone would have had to get the train to stop in the next station before calling for help. Yes this guy was being an idiot but lets not blow things out of proportion: life was indeed possible before the cell phone was invented and it was not significantly more dangerous.
What does that have to do with anything? Blocking cell phone calls this way puts the public at risk regardless of how things were done in the past. It's called progress. What a silly comment.
If the IOC wasn't corrupt, there should be one location for the Summer Olympics (it should be in Greece, where the ancient Olympics are held), and the Winter Olympics should be held in another location, one that is guaranteed to have snow. Throw a few hundred billion at each location; major airports, venues, hospitals, living facilities, and then it's just the cost of maintenance. No more shopping around for kickbacks for the winning society, and no more need for the IOC in its current form.
Do you think Greece with their major economic problem can afford to host the Summer Games every four years? The short answer is NO!
I was once part of an audio book venture that created a book reader app and and associated library application library that was specifically designed to be used by the blind and severely disabled. It actually met all its goals in regards to usability. So the company took it to the largest national organizations to get their seal of approval for it. The company was turned down by all of them because although application interface years ahead of any other application in regrades to the blind and severely disabled, their words, it did not accommodate the deaf. An audio book application that did not accommodate the deaf.
Sorry dude but your story sounds like an urban myth. I'm not buying it.
I miss iGoogle the most from that list. There are third party options that work (specifically I use igHome), but I liked iGoogle better. I also miss the old version of Google Voice. At least it is still functional as part of Hangouts, but I like the simplicity of the Google Voice layout more than with Hangouts.
Yep, I missed iGoogle the most as well. I also miss Google toolbar for Firefox.
If it is a supermassive black hole with low tidal forces at the event horizon, how did it create mindbogglingly huge tidal waves on the first planet they visited?
The director explained they took some liberties. They used two different concepts to get their point across. For example, a supermassive black hole would not have caused the tidal wave on the first planet and the time dilation would not be as large as shown in the movie. The effects of the tidal wave on the first planet and huge time dilation is what you would expect from stellar black hole. Also, stellar black holes have huge tidal forces at the event horizon. Nolan admitted that the effects on the first planet is what you would expect from a stellar black hole and effects at the event horizon is from a supermassive black hole, and he did it that way in the interests of story telling.
I think it's still severe enough. If they want to bundle those apps as the default in Russia, they should be able to do so without losing the ability to bundle Google apps by default in other countries.
I disagree. I see no reason why Google should create exceptions. Phone manufacturers don't license Android on a per market basis. Android license covers the global market and if manufactures break the licensing agreement in one market then that should that be enough to invalidate the license to use Android in every market. Google can't have exclusions if they want users to have a uniform experience.
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh /inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
Google default engine is not baked into the phone and users can switch the default search engine to Bing if they like. That is easy to do. If you are going to jump on Google case because their apps are the default on their operation system then you should also take issue with (1) Apple whose services are the default on iOS and can't be changed. Not to mention, Apple generally doesn't allow third party apps that compete with their apps in the Apple Store. (2) Microsoft 8.1 operating system ships with Bing as the default search engine. (3) Amazon version of Android ships with Yahoo as the default search engine that can't be changed.
Google has never done that. If you are an Android phone manufacturer you can sell Windows phones as well. As a consumer you can change the search engine to Bing if you like; or if you prefer you can buy a phone that defaults to Bing. Manufacturers can and do sell tablets without the Google Play app store, or even with an alternative app store.
What Yandex seems to be claiming is that manufacturers are, in fact, strong-armed to decide whether they want to ship all their phones with Google Play, or none of them. They are specifically claiming that a manufacturer was prevented from entering into an agreement with them to pre-install Yandex software, because they want to ship phones in other countries with Play, and Google's terms for Play require that they ship it in all countries.
Except that isn't quite true. Google doesn't stop Android phone manufacturers from shipping phones with Yandex installed. What phone manufacturers can't do is ship Android phones that doesn't have Google Apps (i.e. Search, Play Store, Mail, Calendar, Music and Maps) as the default. They certainly can bundle Yandex apps with their Android phones providing those apps are not shipped as the default instead of Google apps. Look at all the apps that are bundled in Samsung TouchWiz and HTC Sense UI.
There was a time in the development of the universe where space and time itself essesntially expanded faster than the speed of light. It is pretty widely accepted physics. But this inflationary period after the big bang wasn't technically "faster" than light travel, because the definition of "faster" was bound up in the expansion of space and time. ."
That is incorrect. Space and time never expanded faster than the speed of light. Particles in the early universe traveled at the speed of light. What is correct is that the speed of light in the early universe traveled faster that light currently does. Over time the speed of light slowed down.
We're now forty years after the first oil shock, and, for lack of a valid alternative, oil still runs 98% of transportation.
How come peak oil isn't listed?
The possible reason that oil was not mentioned is that (1) peak oil is a myth, and (2) the world will switch to an alternative to oil long before peak oil. The world's oil reserve is adequate to meet demand and every year the reserve increases in the form of shale oil. We are not going to see peak oil for the next 50+ years, if ever. Also with current technology, we can replace oil with bio-fuels (sure it will cost about $7 per gallon but Europe pays over $5 per gallon. So, $7 is doable) or natural gas. Converting a gasoline engine to run on bio-fuels or natural gas is easy to do. So, oil will not end civilization. At least not directly. However, if two nuclear superpowers get into a dust up over oil. That's another issue.
If I'm reading the article correctly, the information that says that ads in the Facebook style are far more effective than Google's comes from...a study by Facebook. Gee, that seems totally unbiased and could in no way be slanted by them to help them convince potential advertisers to sign up. All of this seems very bizarre after reading -- for years -- about how the Facebook ad model is so deeply flawed.
The reason why is that the average user spends more time on Facebook than on Google services. That means users spends more time viewing ads on Facebook than Google services. However, the author fails to mention Google + which has over 300 million monthly active users who spent an average time of 7 minutes using the service.
I like what Google and Apple are doing. Both companies are trying hard to diversify their products. Providing Google invest heavily in R&D and remain nimble relative to the competition then I don't see Google becoming the next Xerox or Eastman Kodak.
Let me make this real clear.
It is not the responsibility of the government to protect people from their choices.
I must inform you that government(s) do that all the time. Why should this be any different?
What most consumers can not be bothered to do is to read and understand what they are agreeing to in a purchase.
Rarely do customers get an opportunity to see much less read a product's Terms and Conditions before they buy the item. I can't think of any product that has their Terms & Conditions displayed or readily available to customers before purchase.
Vizio is a pretty solid brand... at least for their larger TVs. Decent contrast, good response time, and if you choose carefully, no Smart TV nastiness. Of course, we bought the Smart TV at the time, but it doesn't get in the way. The only way you'll see it is if you press a certain button. And personally, they did Smart TV right. If you need it, it's there and easy to access. If you don't want it, don't worry about it - out of mind, out of sight.
I wouldn't say Vizio doesn't engage in Smart TV nastiness. They are not as bad as LG and Samsung. I have an older Vizio E55 series smart TV, and one of features is that the TV can report to Vizio what TV channels you look at unless you disable the feature in settings.
You missed the point... again. The "airport model" means that "normal" or base service is degraded into total uselessness, and you have to pay to add functionality until the service is no longer useless and/or intensely unpleasant. This may or may not be cheaper than what you had before... but you can't complain because you opened the door for a-la-carte pricing, which will inevitably be used to increase profits.
In the airport model, what normal or base services are degraded into uselessness? If cable companies and content distributors could increase profits using a-la-carte pricing model then those companies would have pushed a-la-carte pricing to consumers. They are not. Cable companies are fighting against the push for a-la-carte pricing and they are not doing so for consumers' benefit.
[First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.
I'm glad someone posted this before I did. This most definitely has zilch to do with Amendment #1. I'll bet money that any of Sony's documents and emails had all sorts of disclaimers added to them. It's those disclaimers that Sony will use to sue press organizations into oblivion if they dare print any of it.
While I'm no fan of Sony, I don't really see this ending well for the press.
They don't have to rely on disclaimers when going after the media in this case. Sony's information system was hacked and the contents in the information system were stolen. Therefore, Sony can sue, for copyright infringement, any medium that downloaded and/or published the hacked emails.
I am so tired of supporting CEOs that bet bonuses based on short term quarterly report results at the expense of the long term health of the company. I'd also like too support a company that is truly innovative vs. one that can't even design a product and instead, outsources the crappy design and manufacture. Give me a premium product and I'll pay a premium price. I realize not everyone wants this but dammit! Give us a choice!
As I have written earlier, short term profits and long term growth are not mutually exclusive events. Quarterly financial reports gives a snapshot into the operations of a company. Think of quarterly financial reports as a performance measurement. A bigger issue is tying CEO salaries to earnings but that is a different topic. If companies are not selling premium products at premium prices that means it's not profitable (or not profitable enough) to do so. I have news for you, companies love making money, and they would gladly sell you a premium product at premium prices if they will make a profit. For example, Samsung sells a 4K television for $100,000. That's is a premium product at a premium price. That is one example of a company selling a premium product that fulfills a need.
Having worked for 15 years in publicly traded companies, I cannot tell you how tired I am of the drumbeat of making our quarterly earnings. I have seen a very consistent and substantial focus on short-term profit to the detriment of long-term growth.
Short term profits and long term growth are not mutually exclusive events (taken from the first page of business 101). Think of quarterly earnings report as a performance gauge or review. Investors (for the most part) don't have access to a company's management or financial records; however, a company's quarterly and yearly financial statements give investors a view into the operations of the company. How are investors to know if a company is meeting goals or is financially stable if the company don't file quarterly financial reports? Would you invest your savings in a 401K plan if the plan don't supply you with yearly financial statements telling you how your investment is doing? I would bet you wouldn't; so, why do you think investors shouldn't do the same? Remember, investors have billions of dollars invested in publicly traded companies, and they need to know what is going on with the companies and financial statements (which includes earnings report) gives them this knowledge.
I would like to hear somebody explain logically why they think the behavior of other modern non-human species provides more insight into human behavior, than simply studying human behavior directly.
Because it gives insight about early human behavior. If violence is an innate part of chimps behavior that means violence was part of our direct ancestors behavior as well and can help to explain conflicts between racial groups, religious groups, ethnic groups, etc. Basically, it helps us understand the roots of our "we vs. they" mentality.