Perhaps Apple is edging toward flexibility, one of the qualities that an organic light-emitting diode panel allows.

In the universe of connectors, the 3.5 mm is a steamshovel at at tea party. Does there need to be another reason?

The 3D contact lenses will deliver.

Why?

In North America, Muslims rarely wear turbans and Sikh men often do, but turbans are climate-appropriate headgear, formalwear, and religious custom in many places where Islam prevails.

In Iran, for instance, a green turban indicates a Sayyed, a religious leader with a bloodline descending from the Prophet.

No one has written enough yet for us to discern. Only basic reactions are posted.

The one post we can state was written by someone insufficiently informed is yours.

We don't need to bring unions in to fleece dues out of everyone, jump in the middle of workplace disputes, destroy advancement based on merit, destroy the incentive to go the extra mile and be a star performer, etc etc. Perhaps if you are a cog turning a screwdriver for a living they are all well and good, but in IT where people work with their minds, it needs to be a creative, innovative, free environment.

Unions didn't kill the motion picture industry.

These visas are for experts of extraordinary skill, training, and achievement, people who are expensive even when you can find them and recruit them.

The one way that to prove no United States citizens were available for the job: pay twice the prevailing wage. If businesses are willing to do that, then they are bringing in someone they need.

There shoud be a $250,000 salary minimum against a 200%-of-prevailing-wage minimum.

Otherwise, they are separating Americans into spoiled consumers and unemployed workers. It doesn't work, because workers and consumers operate out of the same economic households.

In case anyone doubts, as I once did, that Congressperson Gerry Connolly is the outsourcing plant in the Democratic party, I offer the following quote from a recent e-mail to constituents:

"Right now, almost anyone avoid background checks buy purchasing a weapon at a gun show."

Also. Microsoft did not exactly get "smacked down" by the Unites States Justice Department for claiming that their browser was integral to the operating system, a claim, Ed Felten disproved in ninety seconds in open court. Unable to win, Microsoft crowbarred the Judge off the case and got his ruling voided.

Also, Microsoft did not develop its own "Office Suite." They bought the number two or number three brand in spreadsheets, in word processing, etc., and warned everybody, especially corporate and government purchasing executives, not to expect competing software to employ the operating system fully.

The first monopoly belonged to IBM. Microsoft took it over. IBM had just signed a punishing agreement with the Justice Department, so they could not extend the IBM brand into new territories in their old, less aggressive way.

Microsoft was not so restrained. They obtained code they did not create, wrapped it as their own operating system, sold it to IBM, and muscled their way up from there.

That is precisely what they did do and all they have ever done.

That Microsoft has small fires at the borders does not detract from its stunning history of turning "IBM compatibility" in total domination of office workflow. What held it back then and now is only organizational ineffectiveness.

It happened to Microsoft, it was pretty much the exact same thing there with bundling IE with Windows.

Despite overwhelming evidence, Microsoft attacked the presiding federal judge and got the court decisions steamrolled. In other words, it won a case it should have lost, setting an example for us all.

It's not a Google vs. Apple competion thing. It's the small startup in a garage vs. Google thing.

This is a fundamental attack on Android by its monopoly-seeking competitors. The FTC and the Justice Department let Microsoft barge into everyone's applications business thirty-some years ago and since then intellectual property protection services have reduced "anti-trust" to a threat that only corporate lawyers can make and that no corporation, foreign or domestic, has to take seriously.

Apple and Microsoft don't want anyone else collecting screen-rent from every garage.

They want Android, the Google investment, to be free just like the label says, only without a source of payback. Otherwise, what? All licenses for Android voided? Gee, too bad Google couldn't monopolize. Oops, I meant monetize.