or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by zoetmb

It depends upon one's meaning of success. If success means flooding the market with units that bring in almost no profit, then yes, you can say that Android is a success. And it's true that anyone who buys an Android phone isn't buying an Apple phone. Although some people consider their Android phones to serve their purposes well, I pretty much consider Android phones to be the equivalent of a flip-phone. We don't consider flip-phones when we look at Apple's success...
While you make some good points and I do think that many of the broadband providers gouge people, programs like this are generally inefficient and filled with fraud.And if it doesn't limit prices, the vendors will take the subsidy and then raise prices anyway.I'd rather see the Government put people to work and raise the minimum wage. Then those people can pay for their own access. Or, the government can support public Wi-Fi (although much of the public WiFi I've tried...
I hope this is sarcastic because if it's not, it's completely idiotic.  Apple does not force you to use your watch while driving.    The responsibility is on each person to drive properly.   Are you suing McDonald's because some people drink their coffee while driving and that can be distracting?   Are you suing companies who make women's makeup because some women apply makeup while driving?   Are you suing radio stations who play noisy comic bits because that can confuse...
It depends upon what he actually had to do.   If the music app was already on the screen and all he did was hit the arrow for the next song, I don't think he deserved the ticket.   IMO, that's no different than hitting a remote button on the steering wheel that some cars have or reaching over to the radio and hitting next.   But if he had to activate the watch and navigate to the music app and then hit the next arrow, that probably was distracting enough that he deserved...
You're correct in that the watches may have been for people and the dog photos were a joke.   And it's also true that this person might be a wonderful man who donates much of his money.   The problem is that with so many people suffering (and I'm not just talking about peasants and the like), including people in the so-called "middle-class" around the world, it shows complete insensitivity of their plight.    It reeks of real estate magnate Leona Helmsley's "only the...
This is total b.s. since most of the tax money taken from anyone goes to the military (54% of discretionary spending in the 2010 budget), not to another income group.  The next highest figure was 6.4% for health and human services.   And the highest marginal rates paid by the rich have substantially dropped over the years (aside from a recent increase in capital gains rates).  So if anything, you could say in recent decades that the U.S. Government is taking money away...
Assuming that his family came to that money legitimately, which is highly doubtful. The richest 400 people in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world.  Think about that.   400 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion.     While there have always been both very rich and very poor people, the middle class in most developed countries are getting totally screwed. They haven't received a raise in real terms in 30 years.    Since the middle class is the...
I stand corrected, we are the 111th, but almost every country above us on the list is in the third world or in Latin American countries where drug gangs are prevalent.   All European countries are well below us as well as other countries with low gun ownership rates, due to tight laws.  Our rate is 4.7 per 100,000 people.   UK and France is 1.0Italy, Austria, The Netherlands and New Zealand is 0.9Denmark, Spain and Germany is 0.8Sweden is 0.7Japan is 0.3 So either the...
Please come up with some statistics because I believe that's totally and absolutely wrong.   While I admit that I thought it was the opposite (more guns=more violent crime), taking a quick look at the 2012 FBI violent crime statistics, I'd say it's neither.   While someone who knows far more about statistics than I do could probably do a more accurate analysis, if we look at large cities in places that have high and low gun ownership, there doesn't seem to be any...
Even if the NSA did stop collecting this metadata, it might actually be counter-productive. The more data they collect, the harder it is for them to find the needle in the haystack. There's so much data that I bet most of it never gets looked at or evaluated. If they only collect, but never actually look at the data, then while it's still a violation of our privacy, it's not actually doing any harm. But if they start collecting less data, then it's far more likely...
New Posts  All Forums: