normm
About
- Username
- normm
- Joined
- Visits
- 64
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 599
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 653
Reactions
-
Apple uses platform dominance to 'lock out' competition, says Elizabeth Warren
I've never even looked at her Wikipedia page. I've heard her speak on a number of occasions, and read some of her work. She is a world expert on the effects of bankruptcy laws on society, not a litigator. Like the difference between being an economist and being a businessman: business people are notoriously bad economists, because countries are very different than businesses. She has the right background for making new policy, not for being a lawyer.redefiler said:Top expert? Highly cited? You copied that directly from her Wikipedia page.
She was a career teacher before becoming a politician, she's never practiced bankruptcy law, zero experience kinda works against being a top bankruptcy expert. She's never worked in that industry, she writes books for 19-22 year olds, some of whom then graduate and might start a career in bankruptcy law, and any of those people would be more of an expert on day one of their first bankruptcy client.
-
Apple uses platform dominance to 'lock out' competition, says Elizabeth Warren
Warren is one of the top bankruptcy experts in the world, many say the top expert. She's highly cited in her publications on this subject, working as a professor at Harvard. She grew up as a Republican, but it was seeing how ordinary people get pushed into bankruptcy by lack of heath care, and tricked out of their savings by financial advisors and "services", that made her enter politics. She has fought the big banks that screwed up the economy harder than anyone else. Remember that she was supposed to be in charge of the Consumer Protection Agency which she started, but the bank lobby and Republicans blocked her. She started from humble beginnings and has accomplished more than most ever will. It would be nice to have someone who has spent her life working hard to understand economics involved in running things when the world economy is so shaky!soldbyroland said:If there is a God in heaven, she will be picked as Grandma's vice president. Nothing could be more repugnant than these shrill Blues Sisters out on the campaign trail together. Neither of them has ever created anything except hysteria. Yet they are out criticizing the the people who create jobs and opportunity. What a wretched creature she is!!
I am the number one Apple fan, but they are not above criticism. I actually think they would do better by reducing or eliminating their cut of subscription and media-buying charges. It almost forces sellers to move the buying part off their iDevices, which certainly hurts the user experience. I think Apple would make more money overall if they made less in ways that hurt the user experience!
-
On its 9th birthday, Apple's iPhone finds itself at a crossroads
I'm sorry, but the premise of this post is simply wrong. There has been no decline. Last year there was a blip, with the big sales of big phones, and this year the sales are back on the former growth curve. No decline!!
You will find more statistics at Statista
-
On its 9th birthday, Apple's iPhone finds itself at a crossroads
I'm sorry, but the premise of this post is simply wrong. There has been no decline. Last year there was a blip, with the big sales of big phones, and this year the sales are exactly back on the former exponential growth curve. No decline!!
https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/chartoftheday_4149_iphone_sales_n.jpg
-
Take a stand against the Obama/FBI anti-encryption charm offensive
I think weak security almost everywhere is more likely to aid terrorists than anything else, particularly since you can be damn sure they won't be relying on the built-in encryption for their security. Backdoors will only be useful against low-level crimes, and for letting criminals hack into your life.mrich said:We wouldn't be having this conversation if a) such encryption had existed on 9/11 and b) on 9/12 the FBI had asked Apple to let it into any suspect phones. Steve Jobs or Tim Cook would have opened them up with their tongues, because the enormity of the crime demanded it. They would have looked like co-conspirators with mass murderers in the eyes of the whole world if they had made then the same argument Cook et al. are making now. Such noble half-baked and immature statements as the ones made above are only possible because merely 16 persons were murdered in San Bernardino. Yes, the hard truth about abstract moral principles is that they have to be put into action in the real world in the context of real human lives, and that changes the weight and heft of the arguments. If it had been 3,000 people who had been murdered in California rather than a *mere* 16, we wouldn't be hearing these arguments. So that begs the question: Just how many mass murder victims is Apple willing to tolerate? How many are we the public willing to tolerate before we insist that Apple co-operate in keeping us safe? Or is the difference in the nature of the weapons used? Are assault rifle murders acceptable, while murders caused by airplanes are not? How about a poison gas attack, or a dirty bomb? Where is the line between an acceptable number of murders and an intolerable number?
