Verizon's is Android's bitch and they've been in bed ever since Verizon decided not only to take swings at AT&T's network, but by bashing the iPhone and its lack of features that Droid had at the time. Anyone remember the commercial where they placed the iPhone in the land of misfit toys? After all the bashing they're done on iPhone, they're gonna look pretty silly to suddenly do a 180* and promote how great it is. They're Android partners may not be all that thrilled either.

You're sort of proving my point. Just because Apple gives you an inch in the ability to install apps that they control access to, you demand a mile. The iPhone is an appliance - its designed to make telephone calls and interact with the Internet. The iPad is an appliance too with similar features. Nobody called Motorola evil when you couldn't install applications on the StarTac, how is Apple any different?

Why does everyone believe they have the inherent right to install applications on electronics they buy? Have you not noticed that Apple exited the computer business when they removed 'computer' from their corporate name? They make consume electronics now. Sure, some of those happen to be computers. Others happen to be devices to which they generously opened some ability for others to extend onto their platform.

But honestly, when's the last time you installed an application on your toaster? Or your alarm clock? I don't hear anybody bitching about Sony keeping their flat screen television systems controlled.

So much for my English background that I can't even proofread my post properly. Should have said "one of the few in my school that could actually afford one"

I credit going through elementary school with a Commodore 64, one of the few in my school that couldn't actually afford one, for my advanced engineer position I have now. I spent so much time hacking away basic programs and stuff that I ended up learning so much computer science without even realizing.

Its the only explanation I have for how I've been a software engineer for my entire post school career (the past dozen plus years) while my undergrad degree was a BA in English.

I hear NYC and SanFran AT&T horror stories all the time, and then people jump on the bandwagon and say it sucks everywhere else too.

Well, works beautifully in Boston. Recent reports show that its faster and more reliable in Boston than Verizon as well. Believe me, I was a 12 year Verizon veteran and shied away from AT&T because of the 'stories' I heard. One day, work gave me an AT&T serviced BlackBerry and I swapped the sim card into an iPhone off EBay and was astounded that I got better and faster service than my Verizon account gave me.

Dropped Verizon and went AT&T within a week. Nary a problem since.

Sure companies abuse H1B visa programs, and I've seen it first hand. I worked for a firm and aside from a large India based branch office, we had a dozen or so Indian workers in the US office on work visa's. I've see the salary numbers, they made considerably less than their US citizen counterparts. As did the Chinese, Russian, and other slavic imported workers.

While I agree that if someone wishes to work for less, that's fine, but the corporations do need to play by the rule currently in place. Specifically that they are unable to find similar workers in the US do fill the positions.

When my company did a considerable downsize, they let go almost all the US workers, and kept the foreign ones. Most of them were junior and at lower salaries than the ones they let go. So, if they claim they 'cannot' find adequate workers in the US, why did they just lay off a ton and keep the ones on visa?

eom

I work for a California company, and they had me sign a non-compete. I asked them why considering that California courts will not enforce them. Response from the legal department--just in case the court changes their mind.

Agreed, I see the trio of tech, business, and law creating a juggernaut of a CIO/CTO executive.

BA - check
MBA - check
Law Degree - currently in progress

:D

That's a pretty naive thing to say. Hefty fines do have an impact on earning will most definitely reflect poorly upon an executive. Its also not the executive's place to micro-manage each and every department. This law is a civil regulation, not criminal law. There isn't much criminal basis for this sort of infraction. Its tortious in nature, specifically negligence (possibly product liability), and the state governments have created statute to coordinate expectations and further define liability.

The law is already on the books in Massachusetts. Check out my comment below.

Not only is this violation bad in principle, its a violation in Massachusetts and several other states: http://privacylaw.proskauer.com/2007/08/articles/security-breach-notification-l/massachusetts-is-39th-state-to-mandate-breach-notification/
The really kicker is the law requires the firm with a data breach to inform several state agencies AS WELL AS the person who's data has been compromised: