I'm not at all saying that it is ethical, but it certainly has been proven to be a good business model. You may not like what the record industries do (who does?), but to say that they haven't done anything to earn the money is kind of naive. They function very similarly to a bank. If you don't like how they operate, go elsewhere. But the matter of fact is that a large number of artists continue to flock to these labels because of the perceived stability and name recognition.
It's the epitome of first world problems, and should be treated as such.
I think your rabid hatred of it is the real epitome of a first world problem.
Where is the insight here? Other than the clear insight into the poster's fear of experimental, new technologies and applications.
If you want to be religious and non-scientific, do that. Likewise, if you choose to be scientific and non-religious, do that as well. One can also be both or neither, and those are both valid options for how one should live his life, too. However, it serves no purpose but to further degrade the quality of this site when we engage in such a meaningless flame-war, especially when it is generated by such blatant pandering.
Sure, cloud computing has its short-comings. But it has also allowed a litany of small companies who simply can't afford to own their own infrastructure to do business.
Aren't the PETA folks big environmentalists too?
In a word, no. PETA doesn't concern itself with topics of sustainability and preservation of the planet. It prides itself on a hyper-sensationalized message about how humans are evil and can literally do no right to animals.
It really is unfortunate. Where there is room for a decent, effective animal rights group to help solve problems of animal abuse and cruel treatment, PETA has decided to completely occupy the space with its lunatic and extreme ideals, berating or silencing anyone that dares oppose their just and righteous mission.
What is to be lamented is how the 'free press' can be rounded up like a lot of sheep.
Wise words. It is frightening how the common man's only source of information about one or many topics can be so easily twisted to fit an agenda. And then when those same words are reversed, they continue to believe them as if gospel truth.
This kind of trend is fairly common across all major phone manufacturers, across both iOS and Android, and also across Apple and Google themselves. It is why I rarely take a phone review seriously, be it for a phone that I actually am interested in or one that I'm not. Having information about specs and hardware is a good place to start when deciding between two pieces of technology, but past that, a huge amount of one's enjoyment of a device can come from external factors, such as previous brand investment, ecosystem size and saturation, and even things as "trivial" as what one's friends are using.
I try not to be terribly upset when I see Apple product reviewers exhibiting these signs of bias, since a large number of Android (and perhaps even some windows phone?) reviewers do the same things. I read and watch these reviews as I would watch news about politics: with a boulder sized grain of salt. While some truth may be found somewhere in the reviewer's statements, they still can and do fall prey to human shortcomings that affects us all.