or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by cpr1

As of 6am EST the deal had ended. Or so their website claimed. Maybe they just sold out.
Exactly? One's quarterly financial statement is a "Profit and Loss Statement" -- not a "Profit or Loss Statement". 
Not banned in our school district.
It's also one of the reasons why the idea of a bluetooth earpiece will never take off.  Oh, wait, it did.
No dispute - these are poor sample photographs.  But are you saying that, for "real" photographers, B&W photography is not a valid art form?
You are correct -- it is a mockup and not the actual phone.  But your accusation was that they physically altered the MG photo when, in fact, they did not.  What they have chosen to do is use the original, incorrect, comparison by MG and, yes, that's disingenuous at best.
Again, pay attention.  The Mobile Geeks version is altered.  And it's a Mobile Geeks watermark -- they altered their own photo?
The alteration appears to have occurred on the MobileGeeks site as the watermarks don't match.  Pay attention if you're going to make accusations.
What?????  What point are you trying to make with that first sentence?  As far as the second sentence is concerned, people with great driving records already pay significantly less than those with poor driving records -- not free, but significantly less. And this IS how that works.  In your scenario, are you saying they wouldn't pay for insurance at all, but would still have coverage?  I just don't see how this applies to Apple's tax responsibilities.
As long as their tax avoidance is legal, then I would absolutely say "well done".  Publicly held companies answer to their shareholders and their primary responsibility to their shareholders is to maximize value.  Paying taxes that you could have legally avoided is not maximizing value and, in fact, is fiscally irresponsible.
New Posts  All Forums: