[deleted]
59 karma · joined November 23, 2011
Firstly, we're basically talking about the mission statement of the retail stores. It was originally to provide a great experience. Now it is maximize profit. This is definitely a big deal. No longer giving away junk was not a change of Apple's mission statement.
What does that mission statement mean to the customer? Well... I would lean towards believing many customers are loyal to Apple due to quality. It is logical to think Apple believe[s,d] in quality because it lends to customer satisfaction, which lends to brand loyalty. If customer satisfaction is no longer their driving motivation... does that mean Apple has killed the very reason their customers are loyal to them? Those "goodies" probably were never considered the very reason Apple has brand loyalty. If it was, Apple was able to change that reason to a new reason (quality).
Secondly, how much a customer can trust the word of a salesman is often determined by whether the salesman is commission or not... there's a reason people pay attention to it. This is far larger than no longer giving away items which were never used & thrown away. Although the employee don't seem to be paid via commission now, they basically still are (points tallied on how many high profit items are sold).
This is how they luck us in, even though we'd truly prefer to be somewhere else.
Deforestation causes erosion of top soil, nutrient imbalances, dust storms and land slides. Even the type of farming that goes hand and hand with land ownership causes environment problems.
This view seems like foolhardy view, endorsed because of its prevalence on earth in powerful nations.
Regarding point #2, poverty is relative. Although you may consider not having internet to be poverty, much of the world couldn't care less about it. Hunter/Gathers native to Sudan, central, and south africa live the way they do because it is considered to be their culture (they choose to do it). So there is no "poverty" to be talked about. "Being behind" and "Building wealth" sound like nonsense that they deliberately want no parts of. Their state is not something they're trying to get away from. It is desired. So your notion of 'not owning land' put them in this position is false. Their will-power is why they live traditionally, not land ownership.
Living natively didn't cause the land grab. Other people's notions of land ownership is what caused the land grab. If it were not for people who think they own land, there would have been no land grab...
Your logic seems to be completely backwards.
3) is far fetched and would be catastrophic regardless, and 1) may not be viable because the 15 days of the month where the far side of the moon is facing the sun, it isn't facing the earth. If placed on the other side, 50% of the month, earth would be blocking out the sun on the moon's surface, and the other 50% of the month, the near side of the moon wouldn't be facing the sun.
Of course, many would assume I was more likely to be wrong, disagreeing with so many people. I worked in a very stale industry however, no where near as pioneering or cutting edge as some dream jobs in the valley: some would say legacy, enterprise software. So I beg to differ the opposite is possible also. Also, I worked there for years, knowing most colleagues would do anything just to coast, I had far more than 5 minutes to give the processes consideration.
Regardless, what I learned is, if everything in the conversation sounds wrong, and the appropriate "5 minutes" have been given, perhaps you are participating in bad conversations / keeping bad company. Switching jobs is the best thing that could have happened to me in order to improve my expertise.
I'm very interested to know if this applies here. I've been LOOKING for a free way to switch from AT&T to Straight Talk!
Lookup the new UEFI to get more information about it.