Capital needs to be used for purposes in which the large amounts of it do something more than little things.
Giving 45 billion away to pay for food and diapers for every baby in the world for the next 3 months isn't as positive a use as using the $45 billion to establish a plant that makes components for solar power equipment.
There will always be poor people. There isn't always the critical mass of capital to make a difference for everyone.
Apple is in the character set. The autocorrect on my Windows phone using Internet Explorer popped up an Apple emoticon just now while I was entering this message.
As long as Samsung makes enough money to stay in business and continue selling phones, their customers should be happy to get 'the latest stuff' while Apple trails behind.
Unless you're a hooker who works out of a hotel in Cupertino, or an Apple employee, it's just weird to be so elated that Apple sells a trailing edge product at a jacked up price.
The market will correct itself. By definition, if Apple is making a lot of money, the opportunity is there for others to take away that money by being lower cost. Either that, or anti-trust becomes an issue. Either is fine by me.
Because nothing says "religious freedom" like denying other people health care.
Nothing says freedom more than not being forced to pay for other people's 'stuff.'
We all get to die. It's sorta mandatory. How we die is for the most part dependent on our behavior and choices we make, with some chance thrown in there.
How expensive we can make it on the others around us when we are dying is a matter of how much we can coerce other people into spending on us.
The United States at it's zenith, would be called a socialist quagmire by persent day politicians.
What you refer to as 'at it's zenith' is probably that short post-WWII period when the rest of the world had been leveled by war and the US was the only remaining industrial power, correct? Yes, we could 'afford' 90% income taxes on some of the most productive people during that period, because the whole world economy was sort of loony.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say or mean that the Apple logo is in the character set.
I said apple is in the character set. Apple Computer doesn't 'own' the word apple.
Capital needs to be used for purposes in which the large amounts of it do something more than little things.
Giving 45 billion away to pay for food and diapers for every baby in the world for the next 3 months isn't as positive a use as using the $45 billion to establish a plant that makes components for solar power equipment.
There will always be poor people. There isn't always the critical mass of capital to make a difference for everyone.
Sylpheed is just a Windows binary, and one of the nicer ones in existence.
Rage on, internet rage boy.
No. But Nestle will lose the symbol as a trademark, since they will no longer be able to control where it's used.
Apple is in the character set. The autocorrect on my Windows phone using Internet Explorer popped up an Apple emoticon just now while I was entering this message.
The anthro/womans studies majors are listening to their professors, who tell them how important it is for them to continue in their major.
Really, there should be some form of liability relief available for young gullible people who are sold crap like that.
Well, in math 'domain' also has a well-defined meaning.
Or tell terrorists to stop dressing up like Israeli Soldiers and staging 'execution style killings' for the camera.
It's really hard to authenticate anything on Youtube. And it's rather easy to stage inflammatory 'drama' videos.
Apple was just protecting the "user experience" of people flashing plastic at their stores.
It apparently worked for Steve Jobs, or so he claimed. Steve dropped a lot of acid.
As long as Samsung makes enough money to stay in business and continue selling phones, their customers should be happy to get 'the latest stuff' while Apple trails behind.
Unless you're a hooker who works out of a hotel in Cupertino, or an Apple employee, it's just weird to be so elated that Apple sells a trailing edge product at a jacked up price.
Only a sucker buys products from a company that boasts of a high markup on their products.
It's just weird when people come on here praising Apple, as consumers of Apple products, with this as one of the 'virtues' they prize.
Is there some sort of secret form of self esteem boost that comes of proudly proclaiming that you are a sucker for a company?
How about I just charge you $355 for 113 of them?
355 / 113 = 3.141592920353982
(I have never understood why anybody uses 22/7 instead of a slightly bigger approximation that is extremely close to Pi)
But the Tab Window Manager is a window manager, not a desktop environment.
It's eSports. Don't you remember those mutherfuckin' jocks back in high school? They figured out how to operate game controllers.
Prices plummet worldwide on wallpaper as the credentialism plague spreads.
The market will correct itself. By definition, if Apple is making a lot of money, the opportunity is there for others to take away that money by being lower cost. Either that, or anti-trust becomes an issue. Either is fine by me.
Will they also be discontinuing it in a matter of months, or will it last a full year or two before they shut it down?
People could even throw baseballs across state lines! We'd better have the Feds regulate all throwing of baseballs!
Because - and granted, I'm no physicist - I'm pretty sure that if I fly a drone across a state line, it doesn't self destruct, or become a lawn dart.
No, the deal is, if you fly a drone across a state line, it becomes subject to federal regulation. And not before.
Taking a clock out of it's case is not an electronics project. It's a Phillips screwdriver project at best.
I watched the movie in 1977 and haven't bothered with any of the sequels.
Because nothing says "religious freedom" like denying other people health care.
Nothing says freedom more than not being forced to pay for other people's 'stuff.'
We all get to die. It's sorta mandatory. How we die is for the most part dependent on our behavior and choices we make, with some chance thrown in there.
How expensive we can make it on the others around us when we are dying is a matter of how much we can coerce other people into spending on us.
The United States at it's zenith, would be called a socialist quagmire by persent day politicians.
What you refer to as 'at it's zenith' is probably that short post-WWII period when the rest of the world had been leveled by war and the US was the only remaining industrial power, correct? Yes, we could 'afford' 90% income taxes on some of the most productive people during that period, because the whole world economy was sort of loony.