latifbp

cnocbui said:

kevin kee said:

So the three major banks would like to have Apple Pay for themselves while on the same time refusing Apple Pay to use their services. I understand that all business want profits, but if by "any methods necessary" means jeopardizing the consumer's security (and we're talking their money here) AND neglecting the consumer's choice to use ApplePay by forcing their own products (using Apple Chip while throwing out Apple Pay token tech), I think there is a big problem here - in which does not lie on Apple side.

The banks are not proposing to force their customers to do anything.  They want to be able to offer  Apple Pay alternatives.  How would the banks proposals jeopardize their customers security? They seem to manage to handle AU$2 Billion in contactless payments a week in Australia without the sky falling down: http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/110bn-australias-contactless-boom-20160805-gqmg7j.html

crowley said:

latifbp said:

They use that cacrowley said: sh to pay debt they've taken at low interest rates which helps them delay bringing that cash back, don't they?

What debt?  An Apple legal entity in one country cannot pay the debts of another Apple legal entity in a different country.

SpamSandwich said:

stevedownunder said:

What's the schedule for paying all these bonds back ? Apple has raised an awful lot of money but eventually the bond holders will need to be paid back.

In case it's not clear, Apple can rack up $7 billion in profits in no time flat.

crowley said:

tallest skil said:

statements 

Clearly bullshit, honey, a transparent attempt to rewrite a stupid statement since that's not what Trump said at all.  Trump didn't mention the FBI, and even if he did, it's irrelevant.  Whatever the motivation, he is openly inviting Russia to hack into an American political party's email.  That's outside influence, and collusion with a nation that it would not be untoward to describe as belligerent and hostile to US interests.

Treasonous.  Given your history in being uncommonly lax about the definition of the word treason I think this more than fits your bill.

Mike Pence is not Donald Trump.  I don't give a damn what Mike Pence said after the fact, and he didn't directly address what Trump said anyway, just engaged in some distraction.  We're talking about Trump, what Trump said, and your abject denial of his actual words.  I pasted them up there.  Right up there.  Look, I'll paste them again:

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.  I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

Refute these actual words.  Not via Jason Miller or Mike Pence, but those actual words, by Donald Trump, that directly and explicitly encourage Russia to hack into a US political party's email.

Damn wrong I give a fuck.  If the emails were personal then inviting Russia to hack into them would be bad.  If they're not personal then that's an order of magnitude worse.  Just because you want to know what's in someone's email doesn't make inviting Russia to break in any measure of ok.  Take some responsibility for your clown candidate's irresponsibility.

Also, I don't think the response shows that at all.  It's a criticism of Trump, not an admission of anything.  Your interpretation of words appears to be broken.

Rant rant, rah, rah, don't care.

I don't even know why you posted that PDF.  What does a US-Russian treaty have to do with anything?

crowley said:

Oh great, you're back.