In my experience, this may well indicate that someone up the food chain has some different ideas or vision about your project. Often consultants are brought in to recommend what upper management wants to happen, rather than come up with real findings. It saves them having to directly disagree with their own staff. In other words, "Look, these outside (unbiased!?) experts said we should do it this way instead." The problem is that they are often far from unbiased. One of my friends who has been a consultant to some pretty big players was often surprised at how often the 'results' were handed to him by the client after they did their analysis.

Hopefully, that isn't the situation here, but it isn't uncommon. It's something you should keep in mind.

No kidding! I find that most polls seem to be set-up this way these days... I would guess in order so that the outcome can mean whatever the pollster likes. (As I can't believe those making up the polls are all really THAT stupid!) When the poll question is so poorly worded that it can mean just about anything... or the poll doesn't give you real options in answering it... it's a useless poll (well, useless in so far as the results... they are pretty useful for making 'documentaries' and 'news articles' and such.)

The real issue here is the integrity of doctors and corruption in medical system. But, I'm with many of the other posters here in that I still think organ donation is the noble thing to do... and then police the system to try and keep the corruption to a minimum. The reversible vs irreversible issue is the key. More technology, will of course, push that line around. But, so long as, for the most part, doctors make good decisions based on the current bounds of medicine, I'd rather take my chance of helping someone else than fear being a victim of the corruption.

Agreed... it gave 'market confidence' because the Market is pretty much influenced by perception these days, rather than financial reality. So, this move gave the perception of stability of Apple to investors who didn't have a clue about Apple's actual value.

I really don't care all that much about using Apple TV for buying iTMS content until Hollywood gets their acts together (which I don't suspect will happen any time soon). I'll happily use one in the entertainment center, though, to stream music through or watch Netflix, etc. I currently use a PS3, but it uses a LOT more energy to do so.

However, what I think has most of us really excited about the Apple TV is Airplay, especially with it coming to OSX (it already is there on iOS). This really is a pretty big thing for folks who use Apple products. Also, for people who give presentations, the Apple TV is a great product to hook to the projector, and then just use an iPad to wirelessly give the presentation. I only with the Apple TV had a built-in wifi router to save me lugging an Airport Express. (That said, an iPad, Apple TV, and AX is already a pretty portable package!)

the sequel... ;)

Reality filter? You mean, reality distortion field? Yea, Jobs was quite the influential guy and knew how to sell his vision. That distorted many people's reality. But, the truth is (as I mentioned in an above response) that if Apple had followed 10% of all the 'expert advice' they were constantly being given and continued on with CEOs who were supposedly experts in the tech sector, they WOULD have died for sure. It was Steve Jobs to really did think differently, and had the influence and sway to actually pull it off with a public company, that did save Apple. Without that, all the smarts and inventiveness of the employees (which was certainly necessary) would not have mattered.

Face it, Apple wasn't run like just about any other major company... and check their stock price. Conventional 'business wisdom' might be conventional, but it's often wrong, especially in a day where public companies are constantly being driven to short-term-thinking by the investors. Jobs, thankfully, kept Apple somewhat immune to that idiocy.

Oh, I agree. The previous several CEOs were running Apple into the ground, by doing 'business as usual' stupid stuff you always read as advice to Apple by the 'industry experts.' Also, don't forget that Microsoft needed, badly, to look less monopolistic, especially with Office. Having it on multiple platforms was VERY beneficial to Microsoft as well. Without Office, Windows would have died off long ago. Office really has been the key product that everyone in the world seems to think they can't live without.

First, a patent toll isn't a company protecting their intellectual property. A patent troll is a 'firm' that makes nothing, but simply collects patents and hires a lot of lawyers in an attempt to squeeze some cash out of the victims of such tolling.

Second, when you have BILLIONS of cash in the bank, a $150 million 'investment' is better called, a token gesture.

Because it is based off the general, not each specific case. This (hopefully) isn't China.

No kidding!

Notes is one of those really horrible things forced on poor users by idiot IT departments.

That sounds like quite a kludge... FM isn't. ;)

Small businesses would be wise not to invest in Lotus Notes (large ones would be too!).
When evaluating FM, it isn't a matter of big or small, but what needs to be done. Most small-medium businesses would be fine with just FM for most things. Bigger projects can be done with FM for the rapid-development UI aspects, with other DB systems doing the 'crunching' for various aspects.

Umm... I used to work for a Fortune 100 who's main back-end system was FileMaker based. It is an incredibly powerful system due to rapid development capabilities. You can interface to other DB systems for things which need the speed and power FM can't achieve.

Or, you can do the same project with 100 developers rather than 5... your choice.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right (at least as far as the state is concerned... social or religious marriage is another matter).
So, this isn't a matter of freedom... a GLBT couple is already free to form a committed relationship, live together, do what they like in the bedroom, etc.
The state needs to make the decision based on achieving a stable and prosperous society. To do so, they need to promote stability in the relationship which produces the next generation. That is the reason for state marriage... not to make people happy who fall in love.