You may be right. Apple did not create the smartphone segment. What Apple did was create a whole new market segment: Pocket computers, that could make phone calls. (well, technically, mp3 players that could make phone calls...).
This is such a load of complete narrow-minded thinking by small-minded people who can't see beyond their own greed.
Really!
As long as politicians are for sale this problem will not be solved. There is simply too much profit to be made by selling guns and bombs that there is no REAL motive to solve the terrorist problem. (See what I did there? This isn't a problem of Islamists, Christians or Moonies for that matter!)
The terrorists are fighting because they have NOTHING TO LOSE.
Take a fraction of the BILLIONS of dollars that are being literally thrown away on bombs and bullets, and invest in infrastructure: roads, hospitals, communications ; justice: the real sort, not the typical highest bidder type of justice we are all becoming used to; and education. Yes, you will still have nut-jobs. They are everywhere, but if the majority of the people feel secure, and productive, they will be happy, and WAY less likely to pick up a gun and start shooting infidels.
Hollywood has spewed forth a bunch of pre-digested vomitus, and re-re-recycled stories at a time when the cost of a trip to the cinema has reached epic proportions. Meanwhile Netflix, HBO and others are producing high quality ORIGINAL works with intriguing stories that we can consume at our own convenience, without waiting in lineups, and putting up with a bunch of drunk teenagers running back and forth chatting and texting. Top this off with the proliferation of Apple TVs and set-top boxes that have shifted on-line viewing to the living-room screen. Sprinkle with a dash of unemployment and a growing social trend towards cocooning, and this really should come as no surprise.
Ahh, that makes sense, this is about the Catholic Intelligence Agency!
Prieeeests iiiiin spaaaaaace...
I have yet to see a windows based laptop with a useful lifespan anywhere close to one of my Macbooks.
Put in other terms, using the courts to enforce the practice places too much control of a product or service that the consumer paid for into the hands of the vendor. Consumer's wouldn't be very happy if business told them they couldn't resell a product at a profit just because they bought it when there was a good sale...
That, in fact, is exactly the case with airline tickets already. They are non-transferrable. You cannot buy an airline ticket at a lower price and resell it later for a profit.
So called publicly available information is not necessarily freely available information. The insidious thing about the internet is the now ever present "terms of service." It has already been tested through the courts that terms of service are enforceable contracts, so by scraping information, there is a good chance that this application violates the terms of service of the website.
Yay! some guy that has been exploiting workers, preying on consumers, and wrecking environmental destruction for decades (not to mention other activities of dubious legality) gives himself a nice little pat on the back!
What a swell chap!
Unfortunately, this will just get used by anti-science folks to point out how full of shit "science" is.
Yes, but those idiots aren't actually capable of forming rational arguments. They only know how to recite dogma, and their faith doesn't require proof. Just stating something and believing make it true.
The reality is that this exposes the strength of science: Anyone can publish a pile of rubbish and call it fact, but the scientific community will quickly call it out, discuss it, and dismiss the rubbish as such.
No.
Buzzwords were invented by admen to sell products by abusing language to add empty syllables and obfuscate the true worth(lessness) of a product. The words were as empty of meaning as the products were of worth.
A successful editor is a wordsmith, using words to craft deeper meaning filled with subtlety and nuance.
There is nothing more offensive to a master craftsman than the flagrant abuse of his tools.
Security is not ever easy.
Even if you know it well.
There is a constant balancing act between accessibility and security and the two are most often mutually exclusive: one comes at the expense of the other. And even if you have everything locked down tight, it only takes a minute for it to all fall apart due to some exploitable code that is beyond the ken of all but a very few people on the planet.
ISPs should take responsibility for the actions of their users as soon as politicians take responsibility for the actions of their constituents, or maybe even responsibility for their own actions.
Actually the average home use is now up closer to 50GB/month.
So you're saying the chicken came first? The egg that the first chicken hatched from was not actually a chicken egg, it was actually an almost-but-not-quite-chicken egg.
If you can't actually beat 'em, just bankrupt 'em or drive 'em to suicide!
I love the modern concept of "justice"
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act' and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act.'
It's not vague. It's not inclusive. It's actually quite the opposite: It is very EXCLUSIVE. It is meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence IN CORPORATE ACCOUNTING INVESTIGATIONS.
The DFO is trying to have some fishermen charged with accounting fraud for destroying fish. It is completely absurd, and the lawyers that are pushing this should be disbarred, and thrown in jail for contempt of court, or better yet, they should be put into the stocks for people to throw rotten fruit and stones, as they are the perfect example of everything that is wrong with the US legal system.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
