Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@Andrew Pollack: oh stop trying to put some dumb partisan spin on it. I don't care who they support, I support democracy, and having everybody's vote count #californiavotingmachineinvesti...
@_rt¹⁰⁰: Me too - My point is that we have a company run by an extremely partisan hands-on style manager, with 30 or more years experience leading the world in production of highly accurate and reliable banking machines, who can't seem to make a tamper proof and reliable voting device and who claims making a machine that prints a receipt would be "too hard".
I don't care which side he's on, I smell a rat. #californiavotingmachineinvesti...
Hah! This is Diebold Election Systems renamed. What a terrible company. One of many things that makes me ashamed of my government. #californiavotingmachineinvesti...
@Sticks Calhoun: If I recall correctly, Diebold upper management changed their name and kicked the voting machine group out of the company, for besmirching their name and reputation. #californiavotingmachineinvesti...
@jepzilla: That's correct. One of the worst moves that company ever made was getting into the electronic voting machine business and doing it poorly.
My dad worked for them for 38 years and at one time (hold your applause Tenacious D fans) worked on the "tube technology" for drive up teller windows.
I'll always remember the day he brought home some photos of a new project the company was working on. They wanted to take ATM machine technology and integrate them with gas pumps, that way you could drive up, insert your card, pump your gas and drive away. I recall my dad saying something how the company won't get into this because it is not what we do well.
The road to profitability is paved with coulda, woulda, shoulda's. Some of those are good, some are bad. #californiavotingmachineinvesti...
We've got one global corporation angry at another global corporation and then a third global corporation came in and said that one of the other global corporation's is totally lying, but the other global corporation is not lying because it's friends with the global corporation so we should believe that global corporation.
Yeah...
How about we just assume that all of the global corporations are just full of shit and are trying to cover their asses.
"Hey look, I want you to get in there and take one for the team. Go after Google and get some of this heat off of us. Use one of those federally mandated telecommunication regulations to shut them the hell up. Do that for me and we'll keep the iphone exclusive to you guys. But remember if you cross me I'll burn you f*ckers down to the ground.."
Google didn't say anything at all about AT&T in their FCC report. They just answered the one question saying they had no contact with AT&T about the app being blocked. Google Voice isn't really like a regular phone carrier though, you still need another phone number for the call to be routed too, I think of Google Voice more as a conferencing service then a phone carrier.
Google Voice is not a phone company. It is a routing service. The caller to a GV number needs a phone company. The receiver needs a phone company. GV justs routes the call between the 2. The 2 can call each other directly. The routing service can choose which calls to route.
GV does not provide 911 service, the phone company, which GV users need does. GV should not be regulated as a phone company.
What is so difficult to get.. but this is Apple. Imagine if Apple had invented your kitchen appliances. Farmers would have to pay Apple and get approval before you could put their food in your refrigerator. You could not cook unapproved food on your stove. It is great that their products remain niche. Imagine the nightmare if they were not.
Technially people dont need an iPhone to use Google voice.
With the headphones with mic, you could use an iPod touch with google voice. Then you dont have a phone service, because the iPod touch isnt a phone. Unless they restrict it to iPhones only. You wouldnt be able to use it everywhere, but you could use it.
@KTK1990: eh, think you're thinking of Skype... i believe you still need a number so that GV can forward your calls to this number, or connect calls via that number
@taking_this_easy: I know skype does that. I will have to do more reasearch on google voice.. I thought it was you go to the web and register for a free number, then use the app like skype.
I am loathe to admit it, but that sounds perfectly reasonable. If you provide a phone service, you are a phone service. I don't care if you already need a phone service, you are providing interoperability or a work around directly to telecomm and that counts for me.
@Nathan Obbards: depends though, you can provide service and NOT be a provider if you are piggybacking on a local areas clec by way of another carrier like sprint or verizon. This is what time warner cable does by using sprint.
Crazy as it sounds, this would have been the perfect excuse for rejecting (or "not approving") Google Voice. If the FCC requires the connection and Google Voice blocks some of them, the answer back to Google could simply have been "it is in violation of FCC rules" and the story would be over. Wouldn't that have been a great response to the FCC looking into the issue?
"Um, yeah, so you force us to connect all calls, and this application blocks some of them, so the FCC - er, your branch of the government - sort of forced us to reject the stupid thing."
One would think the SEC might have other, more important things to be looking into now given the fact that a lot of non-"murky" laws are being broken every day on Wall Street.
Honestly, I think it's a fair thing to investigate. Yet, it would seem that there must be some privacy issues at stake. How much does the shareholding set really need to know. What isn't necessary to disclose? I have a feeling that because Jobs is such a pivotal figure from a product development standpoint, that these disclosures are more meaningful for Apple, but perhaps not for Acme Tool & Die, for example.
@ninjagin: They don't have to disclose anything. They just cannot mislead investors. For instance, they said that Steve Jobs was having a "hormone imbalance" when he was getting a liver transplant. If the SEC believes that Jobs' health is material to stockholders, then this might be considered fraudulent.
@NurseDave: You don't have to. Its like any law, you apply it to the case at hand. If your CEO is so ingrained in not only the day to day of the company but the very image of the company of course its going to be different then the CEO of a company who does little more then sit back and pull a paycheck.
@Hello Mister Walrus: Well I think thats part of the question. In a case like this is not disclosing something like this misleading by its very nature? There is defiantly a balance of opposing ideals but thats true of nearly any legal question.
10/22/09
Interestingly, if I recall, their President is one of the key fundraisers for the Republican party.
Interesting. #californiavotingmachineinvesti...
10/22/09
10/22/09
I don't care which side he's on, I smell a rat. #californiavotingmachineinvesti...
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
My dad worked for them for 38 years and at one time (hold your applause Tenacious D fans) worked on the "tube technology" for drive up teller windows.
I'll always remember the day he brought home some photos of a new project the company was working on. They wanted to take ATM machine technology and integrate them with gas pumps, that way you could drive up, insert your card, pump your gas and drive away. I recall my dad saying something how the company won't get into this because it is not what we do well.
The road to profitability is paved with coulda, woulda, shoulda's. Some of those are good, some are bad. #californiavotingmachineinvesti...
10/22/09
09/25/09
We've got one global corporation angry at another global corporation and then a third global corporation came in and said that one of the other global corporation's is totally lying, but the other global corporation is not lying because it's friends with the global corporation so we should believe that global corporation.
Yeah...
How about we just assume that all of the global corporations are just full of shit and are trying to cover their asses.
09/26/09
Erm... is AT&T a global company? I think it only operates in the USA.
Maybe thats why it has to be the escape goat.
09/25/09
"Hey look, I want you to get in there and take one for the team. Go after Google and get some of this heat off of us. Use one of those federally mandated telecommunication regulations to shut them the hell up. Do that for me and we'll keep the iphone exclusive to you guys. But remember if you cross me I'll burn you f*ckers down to the ground.."
09/25/09
09/25/09
GV does not provide 911 service, the phone company, which GV users need does. GV should not be regulated as a phone company.
What is so difficult to get.. but this is Apple. Imagine if Apple had invented your kitchen appliances. Farmers would have to pay Apple and get approval before you could put their food in your refrigerator. You could not cook unapproved food on your stove. It is great that their products remain niche. Imagine the nightmare if they were not.
09/25/09
With the headphones with mic, you could use an iPod touch with google voice. Then you dont have a phone service, because the iPod touch isnt a phone. Unless they restrict it to iPhones only. You wouldnt be able to use it everywhere, but you could use it.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
"Um, yeah, so you force us to connect all calls, and this application blocks some of them, so the FCC - er, your branch of the government - sort of forced us to reject the stupid thing."
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
@m4ximusprim3:
09/25/09
09/25/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
07/08/09
@Hello Mister Walrus: Well I think thats part of the question. In a case like this is not disclosing something like this misleading by its very nature? There is defiantly a balance of opposing ideals but thats true of nearly any legal question.
07/08/09