DominikR

It's a cultural thing I believe. Some cultures have a different way of dealing with conflicts, and each one of those has its pros and cons.

The US for example threatens adversaries before it acts. And sometimes it will not act even though she says so. (bluffing like in a poker game) The benefits as I see them is being somewhat more transparent.

The Russians on the other hand will not threaten. They want to keep all their options hidden. But when they come out saying they will do something they very likely will and sometimes this can look like an extreme escalation coming out of nowhere.

Thanks I know, I said that I don't know the specifics and that others (lawyers) will have to decide on that.

I did not say "simple" negligence, that is determined by others who know the specifics of this case.

> Who can then be held responsible when a big company commits criminal acts?

My opinion: Anyone who took part in it either knowing it is illegal or even if the person should have known it is illegal considering his/her position.

Same goes for persons that didn't necessarily know about it but acted negligent or ignored standard procedures that are in place to prevent such a thing.

> But in general a CEO should have a duty to ask questions why a certain division seems to be doing well

Could be negligence, I don't know the specifics here. If it was then he has to be held accountable. But his head might roll in the end regardlessly as people always need a scapegoat, no matter if it's his fault or not. Yet when the government takes action it should not do so just to punish a scapegoat, they should punish because the person broke a law. (if the shareholders fire him even though it's not his fault I couldn't care less, it's their investment and they do not have to act rationally if they want to)

Wells Fargo has 265.000 employees. A CEO certainly has to make sure that there's internal oversight according to regulations and industry standards but it's not his job to personally go spying on people (try doing that on 265.000 employees) or implement the Wells Fargo Gestapo.

If it cannot be proven that he knew about it or encouraged this behaviour then he cannot be held legally accountable. It's like demanding the US president should go to prison because some CIA team somewhere does some really shady stuff that he doesn't know about.

Shareholders might still choose to fire that guy, but it's a choice they have, they do not have to if they are satisfied with his performance.

How come that people today lose their ability to reason as soon as bankers are involved? It's similar to the National Socialists reasoning when they blamed the Jews for everything bad "because they had the all money and controlled the world"

Yahoo is even now more profitable and successful than Twitter ever was. I guess Yahoo is only perceived as such a failure because they could have been Google, but the numbers themselves do not look bad. They are making money for almost 2 decades now.

Maybe Saudi Arabia is going to help out Jack Dorsey. After all they seem to align on freedom of speech issues.

Additional bonus for Saudi Arabia: They could make it an even better ISIS recruitment tool than it already is.

I believe it's possible, they have already tried putting all kinds of apps on their devices that are meant to replace Google functionality.

Some of it worked, some or even most of it didn't.

One thing that we should keep in mind is that some US based services do not work nearly as good in other languages as they do in English.

For example Google Now didn't work as well in German as it did in English for a very long time. Maybe it's still like this to this day. (didn't try it anymore for some time)

So I can absolutely imagine that currently Google Now in Korean/Chinese is worse than Siri/Google Now was in its first iteration in English. For us in the West their apps might look bad and unusable, but to people in Asia our apps might look equally bad and unusable.

You can jailbreak it and install whatever you want. But Apples app store has rules to primarily make Apple profit and also create an ecosystem with certain standards that Apple believes users would appreciate. (and judging by the sales numbers average users do)

You have the right to do with your property as you please, but what you really want is that Apple changes their product so it's easier for you to install what you like. You simply do not have this right. This limitation is well known and advertised so you should have known before you bought an iPhone, and even if you didn't - you can return the iPhone and get your money back.

> Android does not have a ToS regarding in-app purchases, the Play Store does.

I think you know very well that I was talking about the Play Store.

> And the play store ToS rules around in-app purchases also don't apply to physical goods, or products or services that can be used outside the app

Apple in app purchase ToS:

3.1.5 Physical Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than IAP to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies (e.g. Bitcoin, DogeCoin) provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions.

It is not identical (I wrote it is _similar_) as Netflix does have to give Apple a cut, but there are many exceptions both on Apple's side just as there are other exceptions on Google's side.

What really annoys me about your comment though is that my comment wasn't about saying Apple is better or Google is better (clearly some people here can't even mentally handle anyone criticising their beloved company), I'm not even interested in such a conversation.

My comment was about the issues companies have with the fact that Google doesn't enforce their own ToS. (or even worse, maybe they do in some cases and most developers don't know)

Small developers are incentivised to ignore the rules while larger businesses can't risk allocating large budgets towards a business model that contains such uncertainty.

Maybe you can next go through my comments and correct me on grammar errors. English is not my native language after all so I'm certain there's lots of material to find there. Have a nice day!

Now read again what he wrote:

> From what I understand, Apple doesn't force anyone. It's up to them to use it or not. They can always NOT deliver apps for iOS if they think 30% is too much.

Is it not clear that he is talking about the 30% cut that Apple takes for distributing apps on their app store? Do you own the app store if you buy an iPhone? Is it this what you are saying?

I don't get why people downvote this comment, it is factually correct. You are not entitled to do whatever you feel is right on the platform of someone else.

I don't like giving Apple a cut but I recognise that it is their property and I cannot dictate that Apple has to change their rules to accommodate me.

Android also has the similar ToS regarding in app purchase, the only difference is that they do not currently enforce it.

For an indie developer it doesn't sound like a big issue, but for big corporations uncertainty in the business model is a big deal. Often large budgets and many jobs depend on it.

One more thing: Why is it that you seem incapable of discussing an issue without using insults in every other sentence? This doesn't reflect well on your character.

No, there's no need to write specific laws.

If we follow the already existing laws strictly then not a single refugee would qualify for refugee status because they passed through plenty of countries in which their lives are not threatened.

After that we can decide to financially help support refugees that are stranded in Turkey and other neighbouring countries to Syria or we can take in a certain amount that we have carefully vetted to not be dangerous to our society.

There is nothing inhumane about this approach, for each refugee we house and feed here we can house and feed 10 in the Middle East. On top of that we wouldn't have thousands of them drowning every year in the Mediterranean Sea, because very few would try if they knew that there's no chance that they'll be able to stay.

Also we would end human trafficking by enforcing our borders. To me this seems like a win-win for every side.

Regarding the Poles are thieves issue: Stealing cars and rape/murder are not even remotely comparable issues. One of them is annoying and leads to racist jokes, the other one can lead to Germans organising/revolting and starting to indiscriminately kill off anything non German on their territory.

If the government doesn't protect their citizens right to not have their wive's and children raped then people will get rid of them one way or another, usually through uncontrolled violence. I'd prefer the government to do this in a humane way by putting them on a plane and sending them home.

But it wouldn't even have been a problem to restrict the entry of those Poles who are likely to steal cars. It's just a matter of asking them on the border: "What are you planning to do here and how are you going to support your self?" If they can show that they have a job here that can sustain them then you'd have immediately filtered out many of those that just came to steal.

This is by the way allowed in the EU framework. Each EU country can send you back to your origin EU country if you cannot prove that you'll be able to sustain yourself here. Most people do not know this because it's only been used in a few cases.

There's a Note 7 and an iPhone 7 that isn't brick size, just as there's a Pixel XL that is brick sized.

These options exist because many people do prefer larger smartphones. In fact this is the first year where there's higher demand for the iPhone 7 Plus than there is for the iPhone 7.

Very few people would put the blame mainly on companies like Yahoo or Google as they are forced by their government to do this.

But it still makes using their services dangerous to you and your company or the company you are working for.

I would even go so far and require any politician running for any office to not have used any foreign email, messenger or social network in the last X years except for reaching out to voters.

There's a high risk that they could be blackmailed with their private communication being in the hands of foreign governments and I don't want compromised people like that anywhere near public office.

Most of your infrastructure in the US was built during a time when there was comparably little regulation if any at all.

Does this mean that everything built back then is built bad? Why does the Empire State Building still stand?

> And my point is, what good does it do to anyone?

If it is found that people from the Middle East rape much more than native citizens or engage more in certain types of criminal activity that is destabilising the society then there is something that we as a society can do.

We can send them all back. We can send our soldiers to guard the borders and not let anyone of them in. That's a simple solution that would work.

I would even approve of forcing those who committed crimes to work until they fully repaid their victims for all the damage they caused. After that put them on a plane send them home.

But this is not about equal treatment, the elite and the media feel the need to obfuscate because they know that people are not going to tolerate this if they knew the full extent of what is happening.

If I'm in the market for a premium phone (and I am) then I either go with Apple which is known to deliver quality (I can buy a products without prior research because they are rarely bad) or I go with something innovative that is high quality.

The Samsung Note 7 comes to mind with its phenomenal build (except for the explosions), display and some unusual features like a stylus and microSD slot.

But what does the Pixel offer here for a premium price in comparison?

The CPU is premium but weaker than current iPhone processors. Nexus cameras have always been crap even though Google always claimed that with the new generation and some revolutionary changes they have finally "fixed" it. And they always drop support rather quickly, although they always claim otherwise when they launch a new product.

The Nexus devices were at least cheap and so I could overlook this stuff, but I'm not going to spend that kind of money on a device that will probably be a Nexus device with a metal case.

Even if all of that were true, Assange is NOT a US citizen. He cannot go beyond a journalist's 1st Amendment right and he also cannot be a traitor to the US. He is an Australian that operates from outside the US by publishing (often secret) material that his sent to him by whistleblowers without any coercion or payment.

Most of the cost in infrastructure is actually caused by too many regulations in countries such as the US. It is estimated that current regulations increase the costs by a factor of 6-7.

When you look at Barcelona an how they build there it is obvious that they (currently or at least in the recent past) do not have that problem.

That's also one of the reasons why the Chinese can complete a large infrastructure project like a skyscraper in a few months while we need half a decade for the same task.

Didn't know that, but you are right on this, I agree and therefore I upvote your comment. But I still hold my other points as valid.

> That seems to have more to do with his refusal to face the music on rape charges than his releases.

Assange surely is a conspiracy theorist to hide in the embassy when politicians publicly call for his death and his main informant Manning was placed into 24/7 solitary confinement which could only be described as torture.

> the calls for his punishment, including by the most drastic means, have been bipartisan but stronger on the Republican side

Okay, then please name a Republican that has called for killing Assange.

> That, to me, significantly damaged the remaining credibility of the organization.

WikiLeaks is a media organisation so it will crave for attention as all media does. But please name one single case in which data released by WikiLeaks was bogus.

On the other hand I could bring up hundreds of cases where main stream media has released fake information.

So how exactly do you decide who has credibility and who does not?

> Assange says he plans to release amazing, controversial, perception shattering documents, yes? ... the seeming pathological need for attention by its founder.

Didn't he already do this? And not just once, but many times. In fact his releases have been so controversial that he has the "privilege" to live in an embassy while hearing via media politicians (mostly Democrats) calling for his death or even "droning" him. (Hillary suggested that)

Could it be that you are just a Hillary supporter that is afraid he could release something damaging about her?

> Because they are human beings. I think than that's more than enough.

No it is not. Everyone is responsible for him or herself.

Why should I give up my resources to feed people that have been indoctrinated by an aggressive, violent and fundamentally dysfunctional culture whose only export seems to be either oil or terrorism.

We often had refugees coming in here but I've never seen a group of refugees that hates us so much and disregards all our laws. They must literally think we are subhumans or stupid because they didn't seem to deal drugs and rape at will in their own countries.

Someone please explain to me what on earth they must be thinking to come here as guests, be fed and housed by us for free just to then go out and rape local women and children.

We had a case here where a "refugee" raped a 10 year old boy and later claimed in court (with a smirk on his face) that it was a sexual emergency. He didn't have sex for 6 months. In his mind this was a valid excuse.

What do your relatives in Sweden say about this?

Okay, let's just censor news that you don't like. I on the other hand live in a EU country that is the main target for these refugees and I can tell you this stuff (in particular rapes) is real and you calling it BS isn't going to change the reality of what is going on here.

I read the other day that Sweden had to cancel the Earth Hour event where they turn of lights for an hour because the last time they did in 2015 many gang rapes occurred which were committed by refugees. (even 12 year olds were raped)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Hour#2016

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3499108/Earth-hour-c...

That's what you get when you let young women decide on anything related to the nations security. They are the one's who were holding the "refugees are welcome" signs, they are the ones who overwhelmingly vote for Socialists.

I live by the way in the EU so I'm also affected by all of this. Some might say it's heartless but if I saw today a women getting raped or beaten by a refugee on the streets I wouldn't even help her. A year ago she was likely one of those who was calling people like me (I'm against inviting millions to come to the EU like Merkel did) a racist in order to shut us up. Now live with the consequences.