Except for a couple of defensive posts, it's interesting that few of the posters seem to recognize that they are part of the 13%. I'd wager that where 13% might be the share of the general population, here at
/. the share - based on comments on all topics - seem to be about 70%. The year of the Linux desktop. Symbian was sooooo great. Gnome versus KDE. Zune. Apple is doomed. Google is such an innovator and friend of open source. Etc.
Apple and Facebook. Facebook is probably the bigger threat in that they value market share whilst Apple values profit, i.e. they're happy to take the 20% share where 90% of the profit is and leave the rest to others.
AFTER Blackberry? Blackberry routes its messages through its own servers. It keeps copies. On a number of occasions they turned these messages over to governments when it was demanded. India was one of those countries if you want to look it up. Apple's work in this area includes 1) the encryption of data that Apple itself cannot break, 2) reducing the amount of information about you that Apple has as a result of your using their products (e.g. Apple Pay doesn't have your CC or see your transactions, 3) refusing to sell that information to third parties and 4) not allowing applications to collect data about you without your consent. Overall, that's better than Blackberry ever did. Yes, its take awhile to get this far, but they are moving in the right direction.
I work for one. They aren't shams in that there is no profit for shareholders. Yes, the top execs compensate themselves very very well. I'm a top of the heap individual contributor and highly paid and our CEO still makes about 100 times I do - literally. You'd think they'd return some to the "owners" (members), but they only do that - premium adjustments - when competitive or regulatory pressures give them no choice.
Care First is a not for profit company. No shares. No investors. It's member owned.
These are the same documents that are used to prohibit all manner of discrimination - sex, "gender self-identification, sexual preference, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. You can disagree with the law, but declaring it to be immoral is presumptuous.
How is it "immoral"? First of all the law isn't against "thought" - stupid prejudice; it's about "deed" - actively discriminating against someone for reasons irrelevant to the job. We legislate against deeds all the time. Murder, for instance, is mostly illegal. You can think about murdering someone, but you can't take actions that might lead to that result, i.e. hiring a hitman, firing a gun at someone, stabbing someone in the neck with a pencil, etc.
Can't the submitter at least read the article they are submitting? Moron.
The last non-Christian emperor of Rome.
As a train, the airplane is pitiful. It can't haul as much freight or as many passengers. It costs more. It needs to land and be refueled more frequently. And who needs an airplane anyway? Trains are safer as you are less likely to die in an accident. Trains may not be as fast, but what's the hurry? I like sitting in the car and seeing the country go by at ground level. You can't see a damn thing from an airplane and what you do see looks like little toys. Yep, only an idiot would build or buy an airplane because I like trains.
Before him it was the Bush Administration. Before Bush it was Clinton. Minions of the ruling class always do their bidding regardless of major party affiliation.
Courts and police do not predate the concept of a government. Even the Greek city-states were states. The alternative to states were tribes. Not all state's are nations and not all nations have states. Germany is a nation state, but the USA is not. Nor are most if not all African countries and other countries created by colonial or other imperial powers. The Kurds are a nation that has no state. Israel is an attempt to create a nation state by reassembling the nation into a geographic area and declaring a state. The 50 US states are part of a federal system. We tried a confederacy (in 1783-9) but found it didn't work well so we strengthened the central government. So are you saying that you don't like Germany, but you like the USA? How well are the African states working out? The problem with international institutions is that they are not democratic. Totalitarian and authoritarian governments end up with as much say as those with more representative democracies.
Who would enforce the contracts? Contracts of all kind are enforced by government, i.e. the states you think are unnecessary. It's the states that provide the mechanisms to make and enforce laws, contracts, private property, etc. How would you replace that? How does anarchy work exactly?
Yes, but then there are the data brokers who put that all together for their customers. Selling and exchanging data is a big business. A company can buy the raw data in some cases or share their data where it goes into a pool and the broker provides (sells) you details about customers, prospects, leads, partners, etc.
Then IBM would saddle it with some really complex, bloated, crappy middleware called "WebSphere Atomic Appliance for Business". It would be more expensive and run slower than a no-name Intel based blade running Linux and an open source framework. You'd need their professional services to manage it for you.