The money is clearly owed by Volkswagen owners. Just like the owners of any other brand of car with high emissions paid. The Mayor is simply saying that since Volkswagen owners were deceived by Volkswagen, and government monitoring devices were cheated, all knowingly by Volkswagen, then Volkswagen should be responsible for paying the fees.

"It is either being taken up or it's not" Basically the definition of consumed. Consume: verb: use up (a resource).

What is it that you are arguing again?

Changing the subject to how much they should charge does not make your original argument "Except that's not how bandwidth works. You don't consume bandwidth. This is why it doesn't make sense" right. If you don't want to back up your point, then why bother replying?

So when their is saturation in the network it's not from bandwidth consumption? You ISP or phone provider can't fix this by spending their money and splitting nodes, etc.?
Your 10/100 NIC had to be upgraded at cost to you.
Your 2.4 had to be upgraded at cost to you.
But your ISP does not need to spend money to upgrade to provide more bandwidth?

I find it funny they wait 2 month after a death to announce it (after large stock sales) but take 5 days to announce this. :)

There is more than that. Hotels also charge taxes (federal/provincial and local) on each room and about 3% of the 16% tax goes to support tourism. As rental properties aren't taxable, but rooms rentals are, this is a 16% advantage an Airbnb rental has. And pretty good chance most people who rent via Airbnb aren't paying income tax on that either.

In Victoria BC, the city is trying to make all renters register and pay taxes the same as any hotel and there is outrage amongst renters. Many don't want to have to collect and remit the same taxes those they compete with must.....

Who posted this interesting? Shaw do not allow mail servers on dynamic IP's. This is for obvious reasons. Spamhaus treat dynamic IP's the same way. Unless you are using your own mail server you will not be affected by Shaw or Spamhaus's policy that the parent is talking about.
Anyone running their own mail server should be using a static IP address.

You are looking at up to $3.60 per gallon in L.A right now per gasbuddy.com.

California, per the link you provided charges $0.48 per gallon tax PLUS 7.5% state sales tax plus 2% local tax in many areas. "May include" does not mean "does include".

http://www.caltax.org/research/calrank.html

The state tax portion adds $0.27 to the tax and the 2% another $0.07 for a total tax of between $0.75 and $0.82 in California.

Per you link which shows most States with no sales tax to be added and taxes of under $0.30 per gallon, you are validating the grandparents claim that the tax is $0.50/gallon higher....

Maybe there is a real reason.

He was born in Brazil and lived there until he was 9. He has not lived in the US since 2010. He renounced his citizenship in September 2011 long before the IPO was announced, although I am sure he knew the direction.

He is still a Brazillian citizen. If he has to pay US taxes based upon his citizenship wouldn't he also need to pay Brazillian taxes based upon his citizenship as well?

I am not off by a quarter. I linked and pulled my data from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html which is Apples 4th quarter report. So if the data is incorrect, it is Apple data that is incorrect. And I doubt that.

Additionally, I never discussed Apple's net income. "Apples quarterly profit from their last quarter was just over $6 billion "
Apple profit is $6 billion, again from the same report. Profit is not equal to net income.

All my math came from legally filed financial reports.

You still do not comment on the math. Per Samsungs financials they had $3 billion profit from handset sales.
Apple had $6 billion in profits (total not just iPhone).
So unless Apple loses money on everything but handset sales Apple cannot have an 85% share of the profits. Assuming 100% of Apple profit were from iPhone between Samsung and Apple alone that would be $9 billion profit with Samsung pulling in 33% of the profits.

You do realize that Apple makes more than just smartphones, don't you?

You quote the same one article that I was replying too.

And from the article I linked to discussing the Samsung $5 billion: "“(While) 60-70 per cent of (Samsung’s) profit came from handset sales this quarter, ... with memory chip prices rising, chips will play a big part in second quarter profits,” said Kim Sung-in, a chip industry analyst at Kiwoom Securities."

So $3 billion alone from handset sales this quarter.
How much of Apples $6 billion is from handset sales?

Apple don't say. But they do say "The Company sold 17.07 million iPhones in the quarter. Apple sold 11.12 million iPads during the quarter. The Company sold 4.89 million Macs during the quarter. Apple sold 6.62 million iPods."
So less then 50% of the devices sold by Apple were handsets.

Per your article, Samsung = 15% and per my link they made $3 billion. That would mean that Apple made $17 billion on iPhone sales and lost enough money on everything else to bring them down to the $6 billion profit.

I don't believe your article is correct.

"Android manufacturers aren't exactly getting rich either..."

Samsung just posted $5 billion profit for their last quarter.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/samsung-posts-record-quarterly-profit/article2394031/

Apples quarterly profit from their last quarter was just over $6 billion.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html

I agree.

Is it self defence if I am breaking into someone's else home, they grab a knife and "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Clearly no. The homeowner has the right to defend themselves from the instigator.

Is it self defence if I stalk someone walking down the road and they "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Or let's ask it backwards.
If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I am followed and stalked by another are they allowed to kill me when I defend myself?
EVEN if Zimmerman found himself defending himself he should still be investigated as evidence indicates that he is defending himself from an event he initiated.

Trayvon, per mobile conversation with his girlfriend:

""He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'

She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me""

Florida stalking law arguably shows that Trayvon was being stalked. Easily as arguable as the "stand your ground" arguement. And that would mean that he was killed by someone in the commision of a crime.

"FLORIDA

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person."

They didn't give it away for free. They were paid with exposure.

Toyota (or any advertiser) pays dearly for that same exposure.

Today the Final Four games are on TV. Each of these athletes works for free and for exposure and hopes that they benefit directly from that exposure. It might be the knowledge the scholarship provided them, or it might be an NBA draft day paycheck followed by a healthy career. Ask Michael Phelps how much he was paid to attend swim meets before he found a way to monetize his career.

Nobody owes these people anything and this lawsuit was folly.

You can be fired in most jurisdictions for lying on a resume, if it's proven, so I'd be carefull with that.

Facebooks Terms of Use prevent you from providing your password to another. "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
Anyone using Facebook agrees with this the same as they do any other EULA or agreement. Any potential employer who requests your password is asking you to break the legal agreement that you have with Facebook before you can work for them.
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?ref=pf