There was news about it, but most of it was fake.
There was news about it, but most of it was fake.
Same problem as the military. The military pays $800 for a hammer, we pay $800 for an aspirin.
She didn't even have to pick Bernie; there's other not-so-establishment people should could have picked out of the Democratic party. Elizabeth Warren for one, would have been an interesting choice as then they'd have had two women on the ticket, with the VP pick at least being fairly popular among the progressives and Bernie voters. I honestly think even doing this would have won her the election, as it probably would have brought more young voters to the polls, hoping that Hillary would croak early on leaving Warren in charge.
Sorry, no. She royally pissed off all the Bernie voters with that move (plus hiring DWS). This election was basically about establishment vs. non-establishment. People who wanted a big change were screaming for either Trump or Bernie, because they were both non-establishment. Hillary did absolutely nothing to get the Bernie voters back on her side after winning the primaries (or is it "winning" the primaries?), except getting Bernie to stump for her which just wasn't enough after she picked the most pro-establishment democrat she could find to be her running mate. So lots of Bernie voters either sat out the election, or voted 3rd party, or possibly even for Trump.
Of course, Trump seems to be picking a bunch of establishment people to surround himself with (including his VP), but that's another issue. I never said the anti-establishment Trump voters were smart.
Yeah, that didn't help either, nor did the fact that the movie generally sucked in many other ways.
Oh good grief. That's how bonds work.
Amen. That's exactly what I thought when I read the details of this (non-) "story".
The US government has chosen to offer these bonds for its own reasons. One might argue whether the government should be raising money this way, but they (presumably) chose to do that and offer enough of a payout to make it worth investors' time and money.
As you said, that's how it bloody works! Apple just happens to be one of the companies that has taken them up on that.
There's plenty to criticise about Apple, both with their overpriced, walled garden devices, and how they manage their tax (dodging) affairs, but to contrive their investment- and ignore everyone else's- in government bonds that are specifically *meant* to work like this as a "story" is obvious clickbait BS.
I'd have to believe that would be illegal, I'm sure someone's tried to use the domestic company as a borrower and then repay using assets held overseas.
The fancy theater you speak of sounds great, but remember a lot of people don't live near one of those. And it still has other problems, including both the ones you mention and also the ones typical to any cinema: you can't pause or rewind or bring your own food.
If you have a whole group of people, that seems like a perfect time to ditch the theaters altogether and find a DVD/BluRay/streaming video you all want to watch instead, and have movie night at someone's home. It's a much nicer experience if you have a nice group of people you get along with, since you're just around them and not any strangers who'll just ruin the experience. Plus you can have a potluck, make dinner for everyone (easier when you have multiple people willing to pitch in in the kitchen), etc.
I think the point is that Apple has effectively repatriated their earnings into the next best thing to US dollars, and done it without paying taxes.
It was one thing when they hoarded cash overseas without repatriating it, at least in some ways they were exposed to some kind of foreign currency risk. But since they've bought Treasuries with it I think to a lot of people it feels like they're beating the system even further.
No uncomfortable squished together seats
The stupid seats aren't even good for going to the movies with a date. They're squished together, so you're uncomfortably close to some stranger that happens to sit next to you (assuming the theater is moderately full), but there's an uncomfortable armrest in the way which can't be lifted out of the way, so you can't snuggle with your girlfriend either.
Much better to just watch the movie at home on your sectional sofa. Then you can sit as near or far from your companion(s) as you want. You can probably even lie down together on the recliner (it helps if you're both thin here...).
Your response is stupid. No, this stuff has never happened before, that I can readily recall. All your examples are cases where an older technology was replaced by a clearly superior technology. This simply isn't the case here. The 3.5mm headphone jack is the superior technology. Bluetooth is inferior; its only advantage is eliminating a wire, but the downside is poor audio quality as well as radio interference problems. USBc headphones are not a proper replacement because they prevent charging, and also they simply aren't enough of a technical improvement to justify the cost. In fact, the connectors are likely inferior; 3.5mm connectors are simple, easy to plug in since they're round, and extremely rugged compared to today's ultra-delicate connectors. There's simply no good reason to abandon it at this point. Manufacturers are only dumping it because they're cheap and lazy, and one of them wants to sell all their customers brand-new headphones.
There *is* something inherently wrong with a workaround when the problem was never necessary in the first place. No one asked these companies to abandon the 3.5mm jack. The solution is simple: don't buy their shitty products.
Well I looked into the G5 and it doesn't appear to be waterproof, so that's out.
No matter, my Galaxy S5 still works fine for now. Hopefully in a year or two, one of these companies will pull its head out of its ass and make an updated phone as good as this one.
There was nothing whiny about his "excuses". It's his money and time, and his prerogative how to spend them. If the movie companies want his business, they'll make their product available in a format he prefers (and which many people these days prefer, considering how popular streaming video is these days, as evidenced by Netflix's instant play offerings, Hulu, Amazon video, etc.). If they can't be bothered to do that, then he was every right to call them morons and spend his time and money elsewhere.
It's really no different than a company which offers me information and the ability to order their products on a website, versus a company which has no website and insists that I use a fax machine to communicate with them. Guess which one won't be getting my business. But I will make fun of them whenever I have the chance.
I don't think multi-phone pairing with most Bluetooth receivers would be that hard. Nearly all the reasonably modern ones have track skip control and pause/resume functionality. Cars in particular seem to know when a call is coming in since the in-dash display usually shows incoming call status. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the car would just send a PAUSE to the sources playing music if the call came in on another device.
And up to this point, nobody STILL has explained tome whether multi-device pairing/audio mixing is a limitation of the Bluetooth protocol, the hardware/radios or something possible but unimplemented.
If in any problem you find yourself doing an immense amount of work, the answer can be obtained by simple inspection.