Comment Apple (Score 1) 355
Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple is a bulwark in this case by not supporting secure booting on Macs. As a major global vendor, enjoy using them as a base of operations as you oppose UEFI.
Then they shouldn't use Skype, period. Skype is so notoriously unreliable, that for FB to not have a plan to reconnect a bad Skype connection is absolutely unprofessional.
The louder one screams out against something, the less secure they feel.
You're shooting yourselves in the foot here, Apple. If you were truly the winner in this case, you wouldn't have any problem just playing the game and staying cool about it. Now you've raised eyebrows...
Read more about the actual case. Samsung added devices after the HTC agreement; Apple has to counter to keep up. It sure is interesting how you are singling out Apple when it is very clear in this case that it takes two to tango.
Biased summary much?
In this case, biased article perhaps, but not biased summary. The article (TFA) title uses the word "tantrum", so actually, the summary tones down the sensationalist phrasing.
But the summary did not have to use the "tantrum" weasel word. Further, OP didn't have to cite a biased article; there were hundreds to choose from that didn't call it a "tantrum".
No, just accurate.
"Apple throws a tantrum" is "accurate"? Nobody had headlines like "Samsung loses $1billion case, throws a tantrum and demands HTC documents." This is biased reporting, pure and simple.
But we're talking about a presidential elections, the future of the national government rests on this.
Actually, it doesn't. FiveThirtyEight has the probability of Texas breaking for Romney at 100%
While this is true, giving in to the Texas AG's biased demands is part of what keeps Texas from coming and joining modern society in terms of fair and transparent government.
come on, both major political parties in the US are considered far right in any other sane country
Your downvotes not withstanding, you are pretty much correct. Those downvoting you need to let go of their jingoism and go find out what political stances countries besides this one hold. Both U.S. parties pander to big business, something that pretty much NO other country's politicians do.
Legitimately registered voters are allowed to show up, vote, and then leave in an orderly manner. They are not allowed to loiter around the polls all day trying to influence the outcome of the election. And "observers" who aren't even legally registered to vote sure as hell shouldn't be doing that either.
Why are so many people getting uber-defensive about foreigners influencing the election? Dude, they are only here to OBSERVE. They are an impartial 3rd party just as officials in a football game are. They are the only impartial observers you're going to get. Having locals view the polls is like having the umpire of a baseball game be a member of the home team; he would have a vested interest in turning a blind eye to malfeasance.
Getting your hackles up about foreign observers is a sure sign that you're jingoistic and think the USA can do no wrong. And, my, how wrong such thinking is.
unless you are willing to post that you want election "observers" (and by "observers" I don't mean members of the Obama campaign organization) in places like Cook County Illinois, then you are full of crap.
We want them everywhere. Unlike the GOP.
Well, at least it is a good way to destroy science.
How? Does mining have reality warping properties that destroy consistency of observation? From what it sounds, the public universities of Pennsylvania have funding trouble and this is a way to get funding. There is a problem and there is a solution.
1)The problem was caused by Corbett himself when he cut funding for the schools.
2) It's not demonstrated that it's a solution. Who is to say that the money derived from this will be kept by the schools, or even if it is, that it will be enough to make a dent in their financial situation?
3) Even if it's an adequate funding solution, it causes other well-documented problems. You cannot solve problems in a vacuum; you must consider consequences.
...I figure yet another reason not to have a Facebook account....bypasses the problem (and many other privacy issues) entirely.
Except not having a FB account at all is apparently reason for employers to reject you now. Seriously. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
