Just for the record, the "Obamaphone" program has a name. It's called the "Lifeline Assistance Program" and was started in the 1980s by...Ronald Reagan. It has nothing to do with Obama.

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/lif...

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

http://gawker.com/5947133/the-...

I'm all for those guv'mint subsidized chastity belts.

Yeah, but the trick is figuring out a way to get the Duggars to wear them.

Obviously for marketing purposes, they wouldn't consider that a switch.

But with it being a 2 player market and Android having the lions share, it's obvious that most switchers to iphone will have come from Android. The same would be true for switchers to Android. The question is, are the people switching to Iphone greater than the numbers switching to Android.

Also recent numbers will be skewed by the introduction of the Iphone to several countries, most notably China. In established markets, for several years the Iphone user base has been stagnant or dropping slightly with 75-80% of Iphone purchases being from current Iphone users.

Simple answer: it's easier to fleece Apple users.

Android users tend not to click on ads, some will even have ad blockers. Iphone users are less discerning and more prone to impulse purchases. Also Android owners are a lot more varied than Iphone owners meaning the Iphone market is easier to target. Point in short, its not that Android users aren't using the more advanced features of Android phones, it's just that Android users aren't clicking on the "free ringtone" ads.

Reality:

Apple User: I think my phone is soooo superior.

Android user: that's cute.

When people talk about "we haven't returned to the moon" [bfy.tw], it refers to the end of the Apollo program.

So, the trips we've made to the moon SINCE the Apollo program (the most recent was in 2013), just don't count? Why is that?

Further, you apparently posted that "Let Me Google That For You" link without looking at any of the search results that Google provided you. The first link is to a Quora discussion about manned space travel, the second is a CNN article about whether we still need to have men on the moon.

So are you suggesting that only manned missions count as space exploration?

But then... your somewhat hastily provided Google resultsreally start to get interesting:

We get a YouTube video about extraterristrials, two pages from "Above Top Secret" and a website that suggests, "NASA is hiding a very dark secret from us" and that's why we haven't been to the moon. Then there's a link to a young adult Transformers novel on Google books and then a site called "Educating Humanity" which tells us the reason we haven't sent men to the moon is...aliens.

The next time you think to post a "Let Me Google That For You" page, you might want to actually check the links it provides to make sure they don't make you look like a complete schmuck.

I reallize the a person is going to take what the market will pay them, but it is seriously difficult to imagine that they are worth that much.

Then you really won't want to read about David M. Zaslav, from the Discovery Network and The Learning Channel (former home of the Duggar family and Honey Boo Boo) who's total compensation in 2014 was...$156 million!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/1026872...

It is good to be an oligarch.

The fact that we went to the moon in "fucking 1969" is exactly the problem: it was a colossal waste of money. And the reason we haven't returned is the same reason: it still would be a colossal waste of money.

Um, we DID return, and multiple times.

Do you have any of your facts straight or do you just type with the seat of your pants?

First, you believed Columbus' voyages were "privately financed" and then you think we only went to the moon once. Give us a reason why anything else you say should be taken seriously if you can't get basic facts right.

For example, Columbus' Voyage was privately financed

And where do you think Queen Isabella got that money? She wasn't a tech billionaire. The funding came from the Spanish Royal Treasury. That means Spanish peasants paid for it and spoils of war paid for it and outright theft paid for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You think that solid gold throne Queen Elizabeth sits on when she's wearing her Imperial Crown that contains 2,868 diamonds, 273 pearls, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds, and 5 rubies was paid for by the money that the House of Windsor made through honest labor?

danger is that the US government is going to interfere with private space exploration through ridiculous regulations and restrictions.

That US government you speak of derisively got us to the moon and back in fucking 1969. While the mighty private sector is barely replicating what the Mercury Program did over half a century ago. It appears John Galt is not only unoriginal, but he's kind of a fuck-up too.

By your body going into starvation mode. C'mon, it's not that hard to look up how to lose weight sensibly, it's all over the web. Some of those tips are even good. Hint: It's the ones that don't want to sell you their miracle cure crap.

Bar? If your chocolate is solid enough not to require a spoon because that's how it crumbles, it's not pure enough!

There are a lot of fake liberals there.

Having dealt with the Chicago "limousine liberal", I think I know what to expect.

It doesn't really worry me. I can find decent people anywhere. Thanks for the heads up.

Mostly it exposes that people love to believe stories they like. And of course journalists love to publish stories that their readers like.

I just don't think that qualifies as news, though.

All I can see is that I should expand my business to include pitchforks and rope.