IMO, it's Verizon (finally) getting smart and taking advantage of their superior fiber network, giving their customers symmetric bandwidth that cable providers can't provide. Cable companies built a cheaper infrastructure, that physically can't provide as much uplink as downlink. So if Verizon can get people to value symmetric bandwidth, instead of just downlink, suddenly they have the winning network!
Start watching movies in HD (Apple TV, Netflix, Amazon Instant Video) and it'll consume any connection. Then have each of your kids watch their own video streams in their rooms...
I built that network (Pando Networks) a few years ago. The content companies were generally pretty slow to adopt p2p technology, but game companies are all over it. One pleasant aspect was that the advantage of p2p wasn't just economics, though those were great, it was performance. Because downloading from dozens of sources is much more resilient, and on good networks more performant, than downloading from one source. And, with an intelligent network, it could connect you with peers that are close to you in the network, reducing network congestion at the interconnects by 80%. When we ran a large scale test across all the major ISPs, we in fact saw that p2p clients were able to reduce inter-ISP data exchanges (for the p2p network) by 80%, simply through intelligent peer selection, which ISPs loved, and download performance was better, which downloaders loved.
And symmetric fiber networks are awesome at p2p.
The minimum wage affects those who are unable to earn some arbitrarily-set cutoff price. Growth of any jobs that pay that much or more is entirely beside the point.
Statists like to pretend that they're helping the poor with law that says "here you go, you get to earn at least this much!", but what these statues really do is say is "UNLESS you can earn this much, no job for you!"
Newton's philosophical point was that thinking that there must be a model that is absolutely "right" and all others are "wrong" isn't useful for evaluating scientific theories, because that kind of absolutist thinking kept humanity in the dark ages with competing cults of faith in ancient texts, and he proposed a more enlightened approach as being required to make progress. So, the more constructive question is not "who is right", it is whether a theory makes accurate predictions or not. If a theory makes accurate predictions, verified by independent testing, then it's useful. If a theory fails that test, it's not useful. But models are only useful in a specific domain, and only until there's some cast where it doesn't work, and a new or more refined theory takes its place and extends it. And, for the domain where it applies (i.e. the conditions we all live in normally), Newton's laws of motion work well and are quite useful.
It's true that Einstein's Theory of Relativity refined Newton's Laws of Motion to cover additional domains (e.g. near the speed of light). And numerous others have come up with additional refinements to address other specific domains. But none of those make Newton's Laws of Motion "wrong" in any useful sense. They build on Newton's Laws of Motion and extend them, which is (IMO) the opposite of disproving them!
The "debate about climate change" is about whether it's going on and is affected by human behavior.
In scientific terms there's no debate on that topic - it's settled.
In political terms, there's lots of debate, disconnected from scientific facts.
It all reminds me of the decades where medical science knew that smoking killed people, but cigarette companies tried to present the illusion of a debate, through paid fake "research" and massive marketing campaigns, "donations" to politicians, etc., and it took a long time for the political situation to acknowledge reality. This was a clever business tactic, because it let the cigarette companies sell billions more cigarettes, while the people that they killed didn't cost them anything. Not ethical, or good for the country as a whole, of course, but highly profitable for a few companies.
Why should I abandon my home instead of resisting the protection racket in the neighborhood?
Human nature dictates that those with power will always try to exploit the weak.
Yes, and when they do so, we call that government.
It's people like you who enable that mayhem.
You have that exactly backwards. You're the one who supports government, and I'm the one who opposes it.
Logic apparently wasn't taught in the government schools you attended.
Lenovo is a manufacturing company that makes laptops and servers. They don't make software or do systems integration or mobile devices.
Why would IBM partner with them to integrate mobile devices into the enterprise?
Yeah, Apple's products are too successful, so now they're not cool enough for you? And the people that buy Apple products are the "hipsters"? Weird.
How about - Apple's better at figuring out what people need and giving it to them in a high quality product than most tech companies, and they sell and support them better than most tech companies' distribution and support channels, so people really like using Apple products and their products sell extremely well, and people are willing to pay a premium for them over the competition.
Why do some companies spend so much time worrying about phones. People have all sorts of devices from the company that can't be locked out if people just use the device "out of the box". Laptop, desktop, USB stick, hard drive, tablet, car, etc. Companies get people to return company property when they leave the company, with all sorts of traditional mechanisms. Salespeople have company cars fairly often, and companies don't have a remote lock on the car to make sure that they get it back. Why get worked up about being able to lock people out of their phone? Sure, it's nice to have that ability, I suppose, but why do you care about the phone so much more than the other devices, which cost more and/or contain more data?
And really, who has company phones any more - hasn't everyone moved to "bring your own device" where people buy whatever (approved) device they like, and configure it to get company mail, etc. Then when they leave, the data is locked or deleted (that's been a solved problem for many years, on all major platforms) and they keep their phone.
You say that like avoiding taxes is a bad thing.
Every dollar kept out of government hands is a dollar not spend on bloody mayhem.
Everyone wants to make another Candy Crush or Flappy Birds game, and they'll be lucky to make minimum wage for the time they spend doing it. When I became a Mac developer in '84, and when I switched to NeXTSTEP in '89, both were moves decidedly out of the mainstream.
There's no shortage of unmet needs that can be addressed with an iOS app, but if you don't take the time to figure out what they are, then of course you'll fail.
A microphone has already been landed on Mars - unfortunately there was a risk of data corruption if the camera hardware it was attached to was turned on, so the microphone itself never got switched on...