I'm pretty sure Tim couldn't give less of a shit. Doesn't strike me as the type clamouring to get his face on a magazine. At the end, whatever public endeavours he does, he believes to be in the best interests of Apple as a company, not to stoke his ego.
He is getting Apple to further make more profits than Job did when he ran the company.
I'm pretty sure Tim couldn't give less of a shit. Doesn't strike me as the type clamouring to get his face on a magazine. At the end, whatever public endeavours he does, he believes to be in the best interests of Apple as a company, not to stoke his ego.
What cack.
So Cook declaring his sexual preferences to the world is what Apple is all about?
Steve Jobs changed the world. Cook is the caretaker of Apple until the next big thing arrives, be that in eight years' time or longer.
nope. in a nation where a large percentage of the voters hate homosexuals, where states have criminalized homosexual sex or banned civil rights to homosexuals, where politicians have called for homosexuals to be criminalized, and where you can be legally fired, not to mention dragged out & killed by dumbasses for being homosexual, it's actually a pretty big deal for the leader of the most successful US corporation to announce that he's homosexual.
one day it wont be that way, but that day isnt yet today. <span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.4em;">stop pretending. </span>
I think Time did a great job with this year's selection. I personally know someone who risked their life helped out in Africa. She has a very thankless job, working with the CDC. These volunteers deserve our utmost respect and honor.
She lived in the middle of nowhere far from any other people (not to mention that she wasn't sick and therefore not contagious). If you want to point fingers, point them at the moron journalists who followed her around like puppy dogs and stalked her everywhere she went. If there was any risk, it was of the media staff bringing it back into the community all for the sake of their 24x7 news cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustomTB
That explains why Putin would be in the running.
I always figured it would be between Putin and the Ebola doctors. The other candidates had minimal impact on the news in 2014 compared to those two candidates. In fact, if it weren't for fear of feeding the monster (that would be Putin, not Ebola) and most people's misunderstanding of what the Person of the Year was supposed to be about (it's not a "best person of the year" recognition), I would have expected Putin to get the cover. But Time wouldn't have had the guts to pick Putin due to the extreme backlash it would have caused.
Is TIME even relevant anymore? Who wants to read last week's news when nowadays, anyone can easily get up to the minute news any time they want.
Not that I expect a lot of people these days really care (and that's unfortunate) but it's a matter of substance. Most of the news you "get up to the minute" is poorly researched and written, often based on rumors and/or incomplete information, and is driven by the click-bait 24x7 news cycles which depend on fear mongering and sensationalization of the news to drive views. Not that Time and other publications are immune to that (Rolling Stone's recent attempt at journalism is a prime example), and there are some good online news sources. But on average, that "up to the minute" news is far less reliable.
It's a sad state that so many people rely on stories linked in their Facebook News feed for their news, because that's probably the biggest portal for illegitamate "news" stories.
Comments
I'm pretty sure Tim couldn't give less of a shit. Doesn't strike me as the type clamouring to get his face on a magazine. At the end, whatever public endeavours he does, he believes to be in the best interests of Apple as a company, not to stoke his ego.
He is getting Apple to further make more profits than Job did when he ran the company.
What cack.
So Cook declaring his sexual preferences to the world is what Apple is all about?
Steve Jobs changed the world. Cook is the caretaker of Apple until the next big thing arrives, be that in eight years' time or longer.
You're full of it.
Since when did disagreement equal hate?
I’m more curious when disagreement began to equal hate began to equal fear.
Strong is the dark side
I think Time did a great job with this year's selection. I personally know someone who risked their life helped out in Africa. She has a very thankless job, working with the CDC. These volunteers deserve our utmost respect and honor.
I guess you must have missed this one: http://www.people.com/article/ebola-nurse-breaks-quarantine-maine
She lived in the middle of nowhere far from any other people (not to mention that she wasn't sick and therefore not contagious). If you want to point fingers, point them at the moron journalists who followed her around like puppy dogs and stalked her everywhere she went. If there was any risk, it was of the media staff bringing it back into the community all for the sake of their 24x7 news cycle.
That explains why Putin would be in the running.
I always figured it would be between Putin and the Ebola doctors. The other candidates had minimal impact on the news in 2014 compared to those two candidates. In fact, if it weren't for fear of feeding the monster (that would be Putin, not Ebola) and most people's misunderstanding of what the Person of the Year was supposed to be about (it's not a "best person of the year" recognition), I would have expected Putin to get the cover. But Time wouldn't have had the guts to pick Putin due to the extreme backlash it would have caused.
Is TIME even relevant anymore? Who wants to read last week's news when nowadays, anyone can easily get up to the minute news any time they want.
Not that I expect a lot of people these days really care (and that's unfortunate) but it's a matter of substance. Most of the news you "get up to the minute" is poorly researched and written, often based on rumors and/or incomplete information, and is driven by the click-bait 24x7 news cycles which depend on fear mongering and sensationalization of the news to drive views. Not that Time and other publications are immune to that (Rolling Stone's recent attempt at journalism is a prime example), and there are some good online news sources. But on average, that "up to the minute" news is far less reliable.
It's a sad state that so many people rely on stories linked in their Facebook News feed for their news, because that's probably the biggest portal for illegitamate "news" stories.
Who will be next? Kim Kardashion?
Time has become a joke like every other printed publication. No wonder they're losing ground.