or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macaholic_1948

Define what you mean by "moderation" specially with regard to the internet please.
Not going to bother to correct the misquoted inclusion of material I did not write.If I read you correctly: it is against the law to obey the law when your intent is to circumvent the ethical intent of the law even when you follow the law.That is screwed up.
In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to show that following the tax law to the letter is unethical. But, that is really not totally material to the discussion.Apple is a multinational company. They have investors in multiple jurisdictions. Their fiduciary responsibility is defined in the larger sense by the locations within which they are incorporated, the locations wherein they are headquartered for primary taxing purposes, and to a smaller extent by the locations...
Thanks. You understood perfectly.
When ethics and law are at cross purposes, one must follow the law. That is good corporate governance. It is a fiduciary responsibility that must be met. It is ethical behavior. And, most importantly, it supports the rule of law. If you don't like that ethics and the law are at odds, change the law to suit your ethical purpose. If you can't do that, accept that others' views of what is ethical are at odds with yours. If that is still unsettling, either change your ethical...
Why? They already have most of the profit.It's possible the Apple sales numbers were released to late for inclusion.No Apple fan calls themselves an "Apple fan boy" unless they aren't and then, if they preferred something else, they wouldn't be. I doubt you were once an Apple fan at all.
A statistician, true to their craft, will attempt to better define a category labelled as "Others" when the category is equal to 30% of the total being analyzed. This is particularly true when the smallest identified category is 3% of the total. Other should never, ever be your 2nd largest data category. After all, there may be a really good manufacturer that Gartner has hidden in the Other category. In another note, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung were looking at that...
Tsk. Tsk. Imagine that. Google not thinking they have to play by the same rules everyone else has to play by.
Just to make it clear, when someone says that Google does not provide your personal information to advertisers, that means they aren't giving out your name, address, etc. to advertisers. But, Google is telling them about your collective behavior and habits and associating with your devices individually and collectively. The fact that an advertiser does not know your name is true. But, they know your device address and can be even more specific in what they target you with...
Not going to doctors... Hmmmm Not everything written is to be believed. There are also valid conflicting opinions on many issues. I'll leave it at that.
New Posts  All Forums: