Bobbypdue

paxman said:

marsorry said:

Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???

I'd say it is highly debatable wether these fools are anywhere near 'the best of them'. It would have been cheaper and safer unless there is something more to this story. The obvious thing would just to be not to carry at all. This need to carry deadly weapons around would be totally juvenile had it not been so incredibly dangerous.

Have you looked up the amount of violent crime there is in California even with their strict weapon laws? "Cheaper and safer" You don't realize just because someone paid $400 to get a permit in California doesn't mean you are going to get one especially when the person who makes that decision is demanding bribes. "juvenile"? If someone wants your money or you car or your phone or your life they aren't normally going to take it while the police is around. If America was a safe place you might have a point, but it's not. Just look up the number of people beat to death with a blunt object in California it's more than the total number of murders in the UK.

nikon1 said:

“ Jensen reportedly managed to get Moyer to promise that Apple would donate 200 iPads, worth about $70,000, to the Sheriff's Office. Undersheriff sung also extracted from Chadha, the insurance broker, a "promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box seat tickets to a San Jose Sharks hockey game."

In California, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a CCW license that can cost between $200 and $400.

So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally?  They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.

What a pair of Morons!

You must have missed the part where the Sheriff's office asked for the bribes. Also the average non-celebrity person requesting a CCW is turned down in nearly every case even people working in the middle of the night in a bad part of town will have their request for a CCW denied, because selfdefense is not a good enough reason to get a CCW in "may-issue" states. In nearly every case the odds of actually getting a CCW in California is as rare as winning the lottery. Having a process to get a CCW clears them from violating the constitution even though a person who meets "common-sense" need will often if not in every case be denied. Here is what Wikipedia said about "May-Issue" states: "A may-issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement. Moreover, issuing authorities in most may-issue jurisdictions are not required to provide a substantive reason for the denial of a concealed carry permit. Some may-issue jurisdictions may provide administrative and legal avenues for an applicant to appeal a permit denial, while others do not. The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some may-issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some may-issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other may-issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires. Some may-issue jurisdictions give issuing authorities discretion in granting concealed carry permits based on an applicant's suitability (e.g., moral character) by requiring the applicant to submit evidence (resume/curriculum vitae, letters of reference, credit history, etc.) showing the applicant is of suitable character to be issued a permit."

jas99 said:

I’m still extremely surprised that Apple wasn’t able to overcome the gross lack of understanding that went into the criticism, lawsuit, and final ruling. Apple decided to give users optimal performance when their battery aged, making it less necessity replace the device. The intent and outcome was the polar opposite of what they were accused and convicted of doing. So many people are so stupid. 

How is reduced performance "optimal"?  People couldn't tell the batteries in their phones were losing capacity because they still held a charge as long as they did when they were new.  People who picked up a new phone at an Apple store would think the new iphones were that much faster than their current phone without realizing the performance of their phone was being suppressed without their knowledge.  I don't see how people are siding with Apple at all.  What has Apple done for you?  Do you really think Apple cares about you?  They are a trillion dollar business, they'd rather sell a few overpriced devices than sell devices to everyone at much smaller margins. 

meterestnz said:

larrya said:

I didn’t need to be educated about how batteries work. I needed Apple to disclose that they radically changed my phone’s performance characteristics, and I deserved to be a party to that decision. 

Clearly you do, or you would have recognized the batt was at the ragged edge of its performance and replaced it already!

How would someone know their battery has lost a significant amount of capacity if the phone still got the same battery life as it did when it was new?

"Bull. Chips have always been throttled for heat or for battery"   If anyone artificially throttled your device to encourage you to buy new "much faster" models isn't that an issue?  Also $113M might sound like a lot to us, it's nothing to Apple who's profits in 2020, so far, is over $57Billion.  And that's the money they made after running costs and taxes.  $113M isn't even 1% of their profits it's not even 0.5%.  It's such a small fine that Apple can just consider that a business expense and keep doing business they way they have been.