or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by TBell

Why sweat the details?
 First, Apple is an "it", not a "they." It is a singular company. Second, we know the Justice Department is busy saving us from the evil Apple that only increased competition in the eBook market (Amazon's lobbyists can't have that), and across the board brought prices down. Since, the Department of Justice's foolishness, Barnes and Noble's Nook, which was doing well, is now suffering a loss, and the price of eBooks is actually rising on a whole. Third, please enlighten us...
Yes, except that isn't true as a rule. It depends on the long term investor. For instance, pension funds. Pension funds want stable stocks with growth potential or dividends. Institutional investors probably are scared away from Apple because the stock is being so heavily manipulated.
Don't hold your breath. 
Jobs didn't force publishers to go to an agency model. Apple had no power and could not force the publishers to do anything. The publishers hate Amazon, and they were already talking to Barnes and Noble about going to an agency model. Apple was willing to go along with the agency model. Apple, however, didn't want to be undercut in price on new releases, so it insisted on a most favored nations clause for new releases. That simply meant that publishers could not set the...
  That was really shady. 
 They worked together for years at the US Attornies Office (do your own Internet search). They are friends. You don't see Bromwhich or the Judge refuting that when major US papers like the WallStreet Journal report it. They could claim defamation if not true.  Sure, he has experience as a monitor, but no experience with anti-trust. If you had a problem concerning anti-trust, wouldn't you go see an anti-trust lawyer? Being a monitor is easy. One reads Apple's anti-trust...
  Hey, here is an idea. Perhaps, Apple, like myself, actually thinks it didn't do anything wrong? Perhaps, it wants to exercise its rights under the Constitution to have an Appeal Court hear its case. 
The problem with your view is a Judge is supposed to have the appearance of impartiality. She should not give a view on a case until she makes a ruling. Doing so improperly influenced the parties. It let the Department of Justice know which way she would likely rule. Moreover, Thomas Penfield, the Judge in the Microsoft anti-trust case was removed for giving his opinion to a reporter concerning Microsoft's guilt AFTER the case was over and he made a ruling that Microsoft...
  But that is my point. It is not clear based on the passage you provided. My reading of what you provided is that God is only against homosexual perverts, not homosexuals. As another person also pointed out, different versions of the bible are translated differently. Different versions of the translations can be read to mean different things. Moreover, some people who claim to embrace the bible text so literally, forget about teaching by Jesus such as those without sin...
New Posts  All Forums: