i'm going to play devil's advocate here and say: prove obama ISN'T/WASN'T a time-travelling martian. ha! there you go...that means he was.

yeah, lampreys are pretty grizoss as well. actually i was cooking a filet of salmon recently, skin on, and i noticed on one piece a circular jagged scar where the skin seemed to have been abraded. made me think it might have been where a lamprey had attached itself.

between this pacu fish and that spiny penis fish that swims up your urethra, it appears that fish, having discussed it amongst themselves, have concluded that the cock and balls are the best parts of a man to eat...much in the same way that some people think the cheek is the tastiest part of the fish.

um, am i the only one who when they hear someone call a "tube amp" a "vacuum tube amplifier" automatically feels like that person doesn't know anything at all about tube amps? certainly not the difference between tube pre-amps and tube power amps.

GAME FUEL

the photo says "yeah, i'm a billionaire. suck my balls."

you home for the holidays hay-zoos? pretty early post...

I agree. As I mentioned in a comment to Brian B. I think comparing Apple to Gillette is actually unfair to Apple. There's no reason to try and shoehorn their very successful/shrewd/brilliant business strategies into a B-school case study about disposable razors.

that's actually pretty awesome

job will also require exoskeleton maintenance: [www.theonion.com]

that guy looks high off his @$$...and lazy too in his little trolley! the job will mainly be bringing him pretzels, cleaning his bong, and back to back viewings of "half baked".

I'm sorry Brian, but the handle/blade thing just isn't a good fit. But that's fine. It's not the only smart business model...and if anything I think Apple would get equal or greater billing as Gillette in any history of business strategy. There's no reason to artificially simplify what Apple is doing to make it fit…

wow

given apples well established tendency to squeeze its partners with tough negotiations, i'd guess that wholesale prices for resellers aren't a whole lot less than retail. maybe they leave them 10% margin - it wouldn't surprise me.

the analogy would be sound if apple started selling ipads at the same margins as amazon is selling the kindle fire. it has nothing to do with whether or not a company has to do that to succeed. if they don't - good for them - but it doesn't fit the analogy. it makes more sense to think of apple as running two…

valid point, but the reports only matter because it's exactly inversely analogous to the meaning of the gillette example. every business has overhead.

i think i understand what you are trying to say, if you are trying to make a theoretical point about what apple *could* do. but the fact is that they don't do anything of the sort. why would they when they are able to sell huge volumes of hardware without resorting to selling at low margins.

if you could back up your claim about the "10% or less" margins for the ipad with anything other than conjecture, i'd be genuinely impressed. especially since i don't think it's true, other than through grossly bending around their entire business structure to fit the point trying to be made. i don't think apple…

how do you figure "marketing, product development, packaging, supply delivery" don't also apply to gillette? as in, the model for the analogy in question. your argument is that since there are these other costs involved the margins over build cost of the product is irrelevant. how is this not irrelevant for…

[gizmodo.com]