or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by plovell

And let's not forget that 2012 - the period in question - is when traders drove AAPL down to close at exactly $500 on the year-end. Which was good for the people dealing in options.    Not all of the people on Wall Street are crooks. But some of them are.
Not all the people on Wall Street are crooks. But some of them are.   This trader and his boss should have a stint in jail. As an example for the others.   So why are they not there? Why is there a piddling $4 M fine against Morgan Stanley - which will be paid by the shareholders (indirectly) and not those responsible?   Where is the accountability?   Why is it that a teller who misappropriates money goes to jail, and a trader that does the equivalent has the fine...
There are some strong rules against that so it would be good for you to not be more specific than "wonder" unless you have some evidence. Be careful otherwise it could be quite expensive. But, beyond "wondering", do you have any dispute with the data as presented? Do you disagree with it? If so, what and how.
I agree with the suggestion in the article - the combination of Smart Cover and Touch ID doesn't work so well.   The good news is that Apple is good at sorting out issues such as this (which is why they have the location-based security patent).   Personally, while at home I am content with having my iPad not require a passcode to unlock. Of course, Touch ID is required for purchases etc. Away from home, I want  the passcode to be required to unlock it.
This is a class-action suit so there may be some different rules that apply. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but I suspect you may be right. The lawyers probably had two "leads" in case of a problem but now they find there are issues with both. Oops. Courts take a dim view of1. their time being wasted2. lawyers not doing their homework.It would not surprise me if the Judge dismisses this case, maybe with prejudice, just to teach the lawyers that they need to do better...
Not quite. He didn't continue to do stuff there but he continued to be an employee. And still is, as far as I know.
Except that the network doesn't cover the whole of Texas. And, to be fair, the UK one doesn't fully cover the whole country. It does cost more to build a larger network. But the UK, unlike Texas, mandates a certain amount of infrastructure-sharing. That way they don't have the "huge" operators such as Verizon and AT&T so dominant in the market. UK is still an expensive market but the barrier to entry is not as big as it is in the U.S. Wall Street likes the U.S. model with...
Governance is the collective expression of the people.  Government is only as corrupt as we allow it to be. Sometimes that's a lot. Other times not much at all. There are always corrupting influences. The difference is in how dominant they become. However that's a discussion for a different thread - this one's about networks, not politics.
If we look back a century ago, it was precisely the abuses in the free market that led to the Anti-Trust laws and Government regulation. "Let the market sort it out" many have said in this thread. I agree that's desirable but there are times when the market system fails. And then the only remedy is government interference and regulation. We have to cautious about when to apply it but it is essential that the tool be there. Just think what we'd all be doing now if the Bush...
And if you have only one broadband provider, what threat is this ?  They laugh at you, and continue to provide crappy service, and you still have to pay.  Because the alternative is no service. Welcome to reality, Telco-style.
New Posts  All Forums: