“" Apple must make crap. That must be why they are the world's 2nd largest company by market cap. You know nothing. Really."
Umm respectfully the top three firms (converted to $m) by market capitalisation are: PetroChina (329,259.7), Exxon Mobil (316,230.8) & Microsoft (256,864.7).
The figures come from the the FT 500 list (March 2010) but I take your point that Apple is a successful company. My little sister has one and swears by it, I prefer my 'chunkier' laptop. We've both got PCs of course and I think Ericsson (now of course SE) make the best phones on the market. My little sister is not so convinced and goes for Nokia everytime.
I would argue it it depends on what the buyers like to use rather than any 'theological drive' to dislike or like Apple!!”
Aug 27, 2010 at 12:35:57
“To be fair, it isn't just the music. I bought vinyl and then CDs. I actually enjoy buying the CD's and seeing them sit on the shelf grouped by artist. I like reading the sleeve notes and album commentaries but in recent years that has started to slide.
Perhaps the 'music business' doesn't think that such touches are quite so important anymore but I think that if the CD actually comes with a bonus e.g. DVD of concert footage, unreleased pure studio work or such like then fans will buy it.
But the 'music business' has to be far more proactive and say, "yes, it isn't free but for all you true fans out there this is the latest work from your favourite singer 'X' and it comes with studio demo's, thoughts about what the artist was aiming for...oh...and some close shot concert footage from concert 'Y'.”
“"The poster is spot on, if this doesn't work with the rest of the ecosystem all users will care."
Concur, I suspect most users want their devices (of what ever type) to work with all the other devices they possess. I mean I want my mobile phone to work with my MP4 player to work with my PC all the time and so on and so on.”
“When I was at Uni. in the UK, studying materials engineering, one of the group projects we dealt with was the design of a 'modern cricket bat'. There was a programme developed for material designers called the Cambridge MATS Selector. Disalllowing all but the most basic constraints, the metal bats gave higher performance in terms of energy returned but required far more skill to use,
So from a personal standpoint perhaps non-professional baseball players really should use a wooden bat.
Composite bats give a 'wickedly' quick 'rate of return' but the ball direction is about impossible to control given the relative striking areas. In other words, using a composite meant the ball would go for bloody miles but the standard shape of the cricket bat meant the ball could go anywere!!!”
I've suggested (here in the UK) at least that the best course of action would be to scrap our Eurofighter procurement programme but then buy the rights to make the A-10, the Harrier II (and even the A-6 if need be) to give UK forces decent, sturdy GA cover.
However, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on what sort of aircraft would be best.....”
I concur with your thinking.......in the UK our Chief of the Defence Staff keeps harping on about 'fast jets'......
If we need to keep the UK aerospace industry going (which we do) I'd scrap Eurofighter and simply buy the licences for the A-10, Harrier II, hell, even the 'old, low and slow' A-6 to give UK forces decent GA close support capability.
As for the UK's well know shortage of combat helicopters, I see on the 'Net that the US Air National Guard has dozens of airframes 'stood still'. I would suggest that even a 'Huey' (or ten) would be better than moving UK forces around by road.
Will our UK politicians do the sensible thing and spend more....will they.....insert expletive of choice.”
“Umm, I think spending £1400 on chauffeur driven vehicles to attend football matches is hardly trivial as it is taxpayers money he is spending.
His handling of the Damian Green affair was also terrible and he has not exactly covered himself in glory in relation to the lack of help he gave to the Fees Office who were trying to cap MP's expenses.
Of course his case hasn't been helped by this getting into the public domain either:
“Given that the parade (or march or provocation depending on your point of view was originally banned) and then the marchers tried to re-stage it, what exactly did you think the police authorities were going to do?
And they arrested a number of counter-demonstrators according to the report.
I would bet that if I tried to call a parade in Central London (or Paris or Bonn or Washington), had the permit refused and still went ahead, I'd be hauled off to the cells.
I agree that you can argue that the banning should not have taken place or was correct depending on personal philosophy.
But once those marchers hit the streets, the die was cast. Arrests were going to be made, just as they would be anywhere else.”
Steamboater on May 17, 2009 at 16:00:44
“As in das fuher's Germany, laws can be made to specally target a minority for oppression and worse, and often when there is a free vote, and for all intents and purposes in Russia there isn't , there's no free press to advance info about opposition leaders, then what you have is the tyranny of the majority.”
dm10003 on May 17, 2009 at 15:31:10
“let's see if they govern with a more reasonable touch the closer to the olympics we get.”
The figure regarding the approval of torture has also remained constant at around 45% (and even higher in certain cases).
I don't wish to appear overly cynical but no Administration is going to start investigations based on those figures however much certain sections of the public demand it. If you feel you have the time, I've tried to explain my rationale in these previous posts:
Apologies for any spelling mistakes but I can't seem to locate my glasses.”
sviolette on May 16, 2009 at 21:25:02
“It doesn't matter if the public approves of a crime. It's still a crime. A large majority of Americans believe that weed should be legal but there are people arrested for it every day.
You neocons are grasping for straws trying to blame Pelosi for torture when it's the republicans that committed torture at least 266 times.”
sloLes on May 16, 2009 at 20:06:47
“This is an excellent point! Americans don't want to investigate other Americans, unless they are low level scapregoats.
Pelosi's real problem is playing dumb! This is the same strategy that Hillary used, when she claimed that she didn't know that she was authorizing the Iraq invaision. People who care about principles probably can accept that others went along, because they were powerless to stop torture or the invaision. But they don't want the dumb or naive representing them, And they think playing dumb is a lie.
Just compare this dumb posture to career FBI agents writing reports condemning torture they personally witnessed in Guantanamo. Or Red Cross reports. Or the widespread international criticism. People like Pelosi and Clinton were willfully 'in the dark,' because they were ashamed of being powerless and too timid to admit their impotence.
Is it fair to asked whether we want leaders like Pelosi, Clinton, and Obama? It sure is. But the answer is that these might be the best people that we can elect at this time. And these people represent the better inclinations of America, not the worst ones. The best people don't even want to go through our election process. They don't want their families investigated, and their personal lives to become public property. So, let's be real! And let's not crucify our better leaders for being less than we'd personally desire.
So, all three previous commentts are good ones. Pelosi made mistakes, but she has her limits.”
“Hate to douse the optimism with a touch of cold water...but in most of the examples above the disputes revolve around redundancy pay (which should be paid in full) not keeping the company going.
As to the AM steel riot, the shareholders lunch and meeting wasn't even disturbed!!
Which brings me on to my next point......there comes a time when the really big businesses start to fold e.g. steel plants or car factories. Given that these firms often owe billions to banks and employ thousands in a complex process, how can worker sit-ins actually change a closure plan?
For example, Waterford put 10m Euros into a severance pay fund. Sounds a huge amount of money (around 9m in UK pounds) but a large integrated steel plant on average uses about 60,000 pounds worth of electricity per day so the 9m would last less than a month.
So I would argue that any worker action must be focused on ensuring that major infrastructure projects go ahead as that drives the rest of the economy.”
The argument as I see it is that one believes either
(a) simply the CIA are correct in saying "...we told lots of senior people the main points about some highly sensitive plans and operations and here's our paperwork to prove it..."
(b) Graham supporters are correct in thinking that it is prefectly acceptable to use notes written by Graham as 'evidence' that the CIA covered up or mis-lead in the briefing. Obviously his supporters think it is quite clear that Graham's documents are better than the CIA's and no other data is required.
Seems it depends which side of the fence you stand one drives which set of notes you trust.”
Hate to be a cynic as well and cast a stone on the process of the ICC at the end of the war but if you were a German considered important enough to the development and success of the Allies post-war R&D programmes, you got your past history sanitised or simply deleted.
The prosecutors at Nuremburg never got to hear about you.
I think this was all done as Operations LUSTY and Paperclip.”
“Concur.....it is possible that one day the current President may well be involved with something that some may consider illegal but was done for the right reasons. No questions asked.
And that of course dosn't include long-term insiders in DC who knew what was going on. Hell, there would be that many pardons to sign, the President would be as quick to buy a page in the major papers and just list the names. Either that or he'll have to get a stamp with his signature on and very big ink pad for signing those pardons.”
Thus in a jury room, even if you could get the moderates to convict there is a good chance that nearly half the jury will not convict as they think that torture as applied to terrorists is an acceptable practice.
And the current Adminstration is aware that just one failure to convict will end that process stone dead. I would argue that no POTUS or Administration is going to play that game unless they already know the answers to the questions.”
Respectfully given that all the key movers in Congress knew what was going on as early as 2002 (never mind the excuses as to why remained silent) perhaps this is a more accurate quote:
"All colours agree in the dark" - Francis Bacon - Essays (1625).
Or perhaps in the circumstances as the POTUS & his administration know full well that
"The greatest art of a politician is to render vice serviceable to the cause of virtue" Henry St John
As the previous Adminstration did when they sold their actions to the vast majority of the US public. And the approval ratings showed that the public were happy to know that terrorists were being interrogated (and what's more the public didn't care).
Thus being a cynic, I think the current POTUS will use the St John philosophy as he knows that any attempt to prosecute would 'lock up' his programme for the rest of his term. Perhaps he is pondering how to sell a proportion of the US electorate the notion that it is in the nations interest to avoid any investigation.”
“I wouldn't go with the 'people demand it' argument too much. Given the length of time this type of information has been in the public domain, I wouldn't bet that there would be a huge desire for this in Congress.
To many members (of all colours) of that esteemed institution knew precisely what was going on and offered nothing.
Also after factoring in the political effort required to keep the process going, with an uncertain course and outcome, it makes it more likely that the current Admistration will quietly let it drop. After all the new POTUS, is well aware that one day he too may be called on to make a decision (or tacitly sanction) an operation that is not strictly within the Law, for the good of the US and her allies.”