“Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple’s stock surpassed $300 for the first time this week. Investors already had a good feeling about Apple’s latest mega-hit product, the iPad, which analysts expect will add $3 billion in revenue to the fiscal quarter that ended in September,” AP reports. “On Thursday, Apple announced that Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc. will start selling the iPad directly to customers.”
AP reports, “Apple is set to report results for its fiscal fourth quarter Monday.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “iWill” for the heads up.]
@ Steve 4 President
It’s a lot easier to run a company than it is to run a country. Jobs can simply tell his managers what to do. A president (or governor, or mayor) can’t tell the legislature what to do. For better or worse, we live under a political system that splits power three ways.
It’s not surprising CEOs tend to make bad policitians. And vice-versa. They’re completely different skill sets.
Happy 401k
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> $$$,$$$.00
Next week will be early Christmas!!!!
Buy AAPL stocks!!! It ain’t 4 slow fans!
2011 will be Higher AAPL #’s $401?!!
Apple Inc. has:
Zero debts
$48 Billion Cash
Global Expansion & hiring
Great Management
Apple Stores are sardine pack
High demand products
More new products
Happy 401k
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> $$$,$$$.00
Next week will be early Christmas!!!!
Buy AAPL stocks!!! It ain’t 4 slow fans!
2011 will be Higher AAPL #’s $401?!!
Apple Inc. has:
Zero debts
$48 Billion Cash
Global Expansion & hiring
Great Management
Apple Stores are sardine pack
High demand products
More new products
For all those with US presidential comments:
It is not Obama or Bush or Reagan who screws up on it’s promises.
It is the system of elections that cripples each one of them and every election it is getting worse!
As an outsider, I just wonder how anyone in the US honestly expects serious change from any President…Here’s why:
Your elections allow for donations from ‘the public’ to support an election campaign.
Now please explain to me how a president can pursue his original promises if he receives ‘donations’ from the public? Yes I know, there can not be any big donations higher than whatever the amount is….but if a factory donates 10,000 people times that amount (claiming all their people did so individually!?) or a labour union does that in the same way on an even larger scale, then the president to be is already shackled and locked up with promises he has to fullfill.
So look at Obama. He received the highest ever amount of donations for his campaign. Why can people be so foolish to expect that that does not lock him into an impossible amount of obligations already?
If a president is not choosen on a fair and equal set of rules during the election campaign (for example with a fixed budget paid for by the ruling government and a set of pre-conditions like x-amount of years as a governor or senator (or anything else)), then nothing will ever change.
The presidential election system is just seriously flawed, it’s controlled by money, not by qualifications…It is amazing that you guys don’t see that…
For all those with US presidential comments:
It is not Obama or Bush or Reagan who screws up on it’s promises.
It is the system of elections that cripples each one of them and every election it is getting worse!
As an outsider, I just wonder how anyone in the US honestly expects serious change from any President…Here’s why:
Your elections allow for donations from ‘the public’ to support an election campaign.
Now please explain to me how a president can pursue his original promises if he receives ‘donations’ from the public? Yes I know, there can not be any big donations higher than whatever the amount is….but if a factory donates 10,000 people times that amount (claiming all their people did so individually!?) or a labour union does that in the same way on an even larger scale, then the president to be is already shackled and locked up with promises he has to fullfill.
So look at Obama. He received the highest ever amount of donations for his campaign. Why can people be so foolish to expect that that does not lock him into an impossible amount of obligations already?
If a president is not choosen on a fair and equal set of rules during the election campaign (for example with a fixed budget paid for by the ruling government and a set of pre-conditions like x-amount of years as a governor or senator (or anything else)), then nothing will ever change.
The presidential election system is just seriously flawed, it’s controlled by money, not by qualifications…It is amazing that you guys don’t see that…
@ LSvM
We do see that. However, in a country of 300 million how does a candidate get his or her message out without money to put it out via Ads etc.? The government can’t mandate that all broadcasters have to air the candidates ads free of charge. Travel expenses add up too. As well as salaries for staff that run the campaign. The federal government cant pay for it. How would the choice be made as to which candidate would be supported. When the primary elections start there could be over a dozen candidates. The system isn’t perfect but there is no real alternative that will be completely fair and unbiased.
@ LSvM
We do see that. However, in a country of 300 million how does a candidate get his or her message out without money to put it out via Ads etc.? The government can’t mandate that all broadcasters have to air the candidates ads free of charge. Travel expenses add up too. As well as salaries for staff that run the campaign. The federal government cant pay for it. How would the choice be made as to which candidate would be supported. When the primary elections start there could be over a dozen candidates. The system isn’t perfect but there is no real alternative that will be completely fair and unbiased.
@ZAKsPop
I understand the financial problems, as well as to ‘how to select candidates’ problems.
Financially, it’s a budget-issue which is easy to solve in current age of internet, mobile phones and connectivity of people. Call me simplistic, but this is also part of a set of laws that would support such ‘new’ election-system.
There is even now a system/agreement with networks around the country where the government can use their networks in cases of emergency.
Similar, this could be part of a new system where networks have to comply with a set of rules to get their air/cable license, allowing for x-amount of airtime for candidates during elections.
Then, How to choose the candidates that are eligible for the financial support to run a campaign.
Well, that again can be defined by rules.
For example, 1 candidate p/state p/party with presence in Washington (Democrats, Republicans)..
Or, 1 candidate p/party with presence in Washington, where a party committee (I’d imagine 1 person p/state) decides which person to push forward.
There’s so many ways this can be done with minimal financial implications and huge benefits to the general public.
However, I do recognize the fact that your system would be very very difficult to change because of the army of lobbyists that surround Washington.
They’d loose their income pretty much overnight and would never allow that to happen.
@ZAKsPop
I understand the financial problems, as well as to ‘how to select candidates’ problems.
Financially, it’s a budget-issue which is easy to solve in current age of internet, mobile phones and connectivity of people. Call me simplistic, but this is also part of a set of laws that would support such ‘new’ election-system.
There is even now a system/agreement with networks around the country where the government can use their networks in cases of emergency.
Similar, this could be part of a new system where networks have to comply with a set of rules to get their air/cable license, allowing for x-amount of airtime for candidates during elections.
Then, How to choose the candidates that are eligible for the financial support to run a campaign.
Well, that again can be defined by rules.
For example, 1 candidate p/state p/party with presence in Washington (Democrats, Republicans)..
Or, 1 candidate p/party with presence in Washington, where a party committee (I’d imagine 1 person p/state) decides which person to push forward.
There’s so many ways this can be done with minimal financial implications and huge benefits to the general public.
However, I do recognize the fact that your system would be very very difficult to change because of the army of lobbyists that surround Washington.
They’d loose their income pretty much overnight and would never allow that to happen.
@Steve 4 President
Steve would simplify –
– and according to Hofmann’s principle … “The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak” … you just got deep-sixed.
@Steve 4 President
Steve would simplify –
– and according to Hofmann’s principle … “The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak” … you just got deep-sixed.
Now all you armchair analysts how do you get the French back to work again
Peris airports have no fuel deliveries!
The strikers are objecting to their retirement ages being increased.
Now all you armchair analysts how do you get the French back to work again
Peris airports have no fuel deliveries!
The strikers are objecting to their retirement ages being increased.
Apple is always coming up with all these amazing stuff, Totally like it
http://www.cellhub.com/t-mobile-cell-phone-plans/even-more-unlimited-talk.html
Apple is always coming up with all these amazing stuff, Totally like it
http://www.cellhub.com/t-mobile-cell-phone-plans/even-more-unlimited-talk.html
@Court Jester,
Your argument would be more persuasive if you could spell properly…
@Court Jester,
Your argument would be more persuasive if you could spell properly…
@court
But WHY are they striking? And why are students joining in the strikes (nowhere near retirement for decades)?
Because they both understand the immutable law of supply and demand. By raising the retirement age France would be pushing millions more into the labor market, thus effectively lowering demand (wages) as supply (workers) goes up. French workers put a value on their labor and recognize shrinking their personal profit margins is not a sustainable proposition. Just like AAPL.
@court
But WHY are they striking? And why are students joining in the strikes (nowhere near retirement for decades)?
Because they both understand the immutable law of supply and demand. By raising the retirement age France would be pushing millions more into the labor market, thus effectively lowering demand (wages) as supply (workers) goes up. French workers put a value on their labor and recognize shrinking their personal profit margins is not a sustainable proposition. Just like AAPL.
@ TxDoc
“French workers put a value on their labor and recognize shrinking their personal profit margins is not a sustainable proposition.”
Incredibly short sighted. If the cost of the social program is unsustainable everyone loses when the institution becomes insolvent.
The populace have a choice, work to an older age for a little less pay (per your supply/demand argument) or see confiscatory taxes to inefficiently fund the early retirement that will have the retired exist at a poverty level standard of living.
I would choose the path where the older folks are productively working a little longer rather then unproductively living on the dole at the expense of future generations.
@ TxDoc
“French workers put a value on their labor and recognize shrinking their personal profit margins is not a sustainable proposition.”
Incredibly short sighted. If the cost of the social program is unsustainable everyone loses when the institution becomes insolvent.
The populace have a choice, work to an older age for a little less pay (per your supply/demand argument) or see confiscatory taxes to inefficiently fund the early retirement that will have the retired exist at a poverty level standard of living.
I would choose the path where the older folks are productively working a little longer rather then unproductively living on the dole at the expense of future generations.
@ nearly all the political posters
Simplistic thinking produces simplistic answers. Simplistic answers fail. The world is complex; deal with it. And if you can’t think that through, then please don’t vote.
@ Luc Scholte van Mast
More and more, US elections are dominated by anonymous money. But the main problem remains that so much of the electorate is voting emotionally, not rationally or intelligently. There is no other plausible explanation for Angle, Buck, O’Donnell, Paladino, &c, &c, &c…
@ nearly all the political posters
Simplistic thinking produces simplistic answers. Simplistic answers fail. The world is complex; deal with it. And if you can’t think that through, then please don’t vote.
@ Luc Scholte van Mast
More and more, US elections are dominated by anonymous money. But the main problem remains that so much of the electorate is voting emotionally, not rationally or intelligently. There is no other plausible explanation for Angle, Buck, O’Donnell, Paladino, &c, &c, &c…
@ Hmm….
Emotional voting. I can imagine that having been Obama’s main benefactor.
By that argument though it’s even more important to take the money out of the race. Money can help shape emotions quite easily of course. (not talking bribes here but creating atmosphere, campaigns that start emotions, etc….)
@ Hmm….
Emotional voting. I can imagine that having been Obama’s main benefactor.
By that argument though it’s even more important to take the money out of the race. Money can help shape emotions quite easily of course. (not talking bribes here but creating atmosphere, campaigns that start emotions, etc….)