or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

    Nope, partly..   Samsung also manufactures Qualcomm's snapdragons.    http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/07/04/qualcomm.partners.with.rival.samsung.on.s4.processor/   goes on to show that TSMC probably doesn't have the kind of capacity or quality to meet Apple's demand. And Samsung's own Exynos now supports LTE:   http://rootzwiki.com/news/_/articles/announcements/samsung-galaxy-note-2-marries-quad-core-exynos-to-lte-in-the-us-all-major-carriers-by-november-r1132
  Furthermore, most US carriers offer higher subsidies for Apple iPhones ($450+) vs. Android (Galaxy S3 - $320) or even Windows (Lumia - $300) - or typically less than $350.
  eh?  The Galaxy S3 Mini is listed for £298.80 in the UK.  You do realize that £350 is roughly equal to $600 USD - the US price of the GS3 without contract?
  Apple doesn't agree with you,    .. Apple now suing Polish grocery store for infringement http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp   and Samsung doesn't own the grocery store.
  two wrongs make a right..  We are talking about Samsung vs. Apple, not Apple vs Microsoft - though I see Apple more in common with Microsoft than Samsung with Microsoft.   Yeah, sure.  You just read some headlines and you know everything about Samsung. LOL.
  why?  That's what American company Micron did to avoid price-fixing charges a few years back.  That's perfectly legit.  Boy, Samsung learns quick from their American competitors. 
  There was no such leak ever.  QE provided a summary of the evidence rejected by the court when asked by reporters.  Nope, these are for "attorney eyes only."  As judge magistrate Grewal noted there is a little reason why this motion should be rejected, considering that "Many third parties to this case have had their licensing agreements disclosed.."     http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012112121031884
  Unfortunately neither of them require the kind of resources and money that US needed to fight the World War 2.  Today's defense spending likewise is less than 25% of the entire federal budget. 
  Not sure what your point is..  Back then about 75% of all the federal spending went to the DOD - paying for millions of troops stationed all over the Europe and Asia.   Furthermore, unlike now, the country had a fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, constantly fighting to cut gov't spending (vs. "the spender").
  Clinton had a surplus - which ironically still added the growing national debt. The last time there was a true reduction in the national debt was in 1957 during Eisenhower administration - known for his spending cuts.    No, honey, ever heard of the dot com bubble Bush inherited from Clinton?  Bush's tax cut applied to everyone, not just the rich. Bush tax cuts while it lasted contributed to the all the jobs created during housing crisis (to use your crazy logic that...
New Posts  All Forums: