Their breakdown shows about infected 16,500 devices are online at any one time. The malware type for all infections is available on the site."
Link to Original Source
For me, I think the EPA' decision to shorten US residents useful lifespan by 2, 5, maybe 10 years
Or maybe 0 years. Or given the circumstances, even a negative amount of years since they are weakening the regulation in the advent of an emergency, which is where one would expect other rather urgent issues affecting life expectancy to rear their ugly heads. Is it somehow better to die of thirst or starve to death now than live with a slightly shorter lifespan maybe?
It's whatever the going rate is,
Aside from as the AC noted, a "chickenshit" answer, it's also an admission of surrender. After all, what Apple does is legal and hence, is the going rate. Your argument is self-defeating.
Jobs/Woz grew up in the USA, they were educated there and used the resources/facilities/opportunities of the USA to earn their fortunes. Many of those resources/facilities/opportunities were provided using taxpayer money.
And what makes you think they haven't paid that back by orders of magnitude? This is one of those demonstrations of how stupid social ideas tend to be. We have here the creation of a debt that could be and technically was repaid easily. But you still consider it unpaid because that furthers your interests.
I think it ingratitude. Instead of being thankful that a bunch of hard working people helped a lot of people through Apple and its works, you're still holding over its head ridiculous social responsibility due to the meager efforts that society played in its creation.
It's normal when working in a nuclear plant to be taking potassium iodide on a regular basis, which isn't something that the general populace is likely to be doing.
You would have to have a significantly elevated risk of being exposed to radioactive iodine to justify it. Just working at a nuclear plant doesn't mean you have that risk.
And what does "not assuming" such things do for us? Not much in the absence of evidence.
I find that companies literally sucking money out of the economy, then letting it sit, thereby starving the economy of capital, thereby adding to high unemployment, lower wages, less benefits, less job security, less public services, etc... is pretty bad for society.
What makes you think this is happening here? Instead, I see a bunch of governments acting in bizarre and harmful ways backed by some pretty crazy voters. Who's going to throw money into the economy just to have it destroyed by the next insane idea out of the US or EU?
Define morally acceptable.
It's an arbitrary map from a directly ordered set to a subset of possible human behaviors.
but it isn't adding much value either
You aren't adding much value for me either. But I see a lot of value in a "live and let live" policy where you don't interfere with people who are doing things that aren't valuable to you.
The 11 hour delay to make a trade if you get information right after extended hours trading ends on the NYSE seems like an unconscionable delay if milliseconds actually matter. If this had anything to do with market efficiency, they would be clamoring to extend the market hours.
I believe you can trade after hours on so called "dark pool" markets which don't have the constraints of the NYSE and similar markets. The clamoring was answered.
While there may be laws on the books in the US protecting citizens from the CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI, etc...(goddamn long list of Govt. agencies) those laws have been ignored for a dozen years.
How can they be sure you're a citizen if they don't spy on you?
When a company like Apple avoids/evades paying taxes, it hurts the free market by taking for themselves an advantage that other companies can or do not.
No. There is a difference legally between tax avoidance and tax evasion in that the latter is defined to be illegal. What Apple is doing is legal. Hence, anyone or any business in the so-called "free market" can pursue the same strategies.
While the original poster attempted to make a distinction between "legal" and "morally acceptable", it's worth noting that what Apple does is probably considered morally acceptable by Apple. Why should I give the original poster's opinion on moral acceptability any more weight than Apple's?
By not contributing their share of taxes
That's an opinion. Apple doesn't have a defined share of taxes. And I've noticed that no one goes out of their way to pay more taxes.
Stealing is immoral. [...] Lying is immoral.
No evidence in either case that this is occurring.
You cannot make a persuasive argument that you are not represented.
What does "represented" do for me? Sounds like it's nothing more than a pretext for claiming that I have no justification for complaining about taxation. The problem with my "representation" is that it is diluted by a lot of other people.
What I find instead is that I represent my interests far better than any government does or could. Hence, I have a natural desire to see power shifted from that government to me. Second, since government is running so very counter to my beliefs and opinions, particularly on fiscal and future-oriented matters, why should I think I'm being represented here? Instead, I find that those engaging in adventurous tax avoidance seem to further my interests better than the governments which claim to represent my interests.
I wouldn't make the mistake of saying that Apple is representing my interests because they happen to be doing something I approve of. But we seem to have common interests which is more than I can say for the people who are getting worked up over what is supposed to be morally acceptable.
Oh well, at least they didn't pull an Apple and label it "The New Xbox(tm)".
Volkswagen is even worse about that. First they had the old air-cooled Beetle (except it was actually called the "Type 1"), then they had the "New Beetle" (from 1998 to 2011), and now they have the "Beetle" (from 2012 on). So now, to avoid confusion, I have to refer to my 1998 model as my "old New Beetle" and my friend with a 2013 model has to refer to it as a "2012 Beetle" because if he calls it simply "new" people will think it's the 1998-2011 version!
(And no matter what we call it, we'll still get asked "is the engine in the back?")
yeah, fuck people after all... it cost muney and stuff...
Did you bother reading the rest of my post where I go into how we can balance public and private interests here without creating a cluster-f*ck of high cost litigation that ultimately winds up costing all of us? Or did you just knee-jerk your foot into your own mouth?
If you're a spy or diplomat or whatever, don't use Gmail. At the very least it is subject to the US government's laws. Get yourself a secured server somewhere else.
Just them? You'll note it also said suspected spies and terrorists. With "broader definitions" of terrorism coming out every day, and the criteria for being included on a watchlist, paired with these hotlines opening up for anonymous "tips"... pretty much anyone these days can be a suspected spy or terrorist. And being a citizen of the US is very little barrier against invasions of your privacy; They've even talked about revoking citizenship for people simply to avoid any legal hassles.
It might be more accurate to say "If you are writing anything you don't want made public, given to law enforcement, or any of the 170+ governments of the world, don't use Gmail." At least then we'd cover all the bases.
Paralysis through analysis.