most people bought the iPhone 4 on a 24 month contract, those people probably wont by the iPhone 4S due to the high cost of early termination fees for little gain. (of course some people will which is just a bonus).
This cycle is pretty clever as it pretty much guarentees majority of iPhone 4 holders will upgrade to iPhone 5, whilst simaltanously giving a decent bump in sales to people who have had there friends talking up the iPhone 4 for a year a chance to one-up them.
But what about the 3GS people that are coming off their 24 months and were waiting for the 5? Those people might start looking to see what Android has to offer.
I'm one of them and I don't see a compelling enough reason to upgrade at this point (iPhone or Android). Siri looks interesting, but it's not a feature worth locking myself into another 24 month contract for.
All the Australian networks are moving to 4G, so IMO it's a good time to wait for the next gen of LTE handsets. As with the original iPhone, I suspect it was just too early for Apple to switch.
Ehrman's book mixes fact with a great deal of speculation. I would not recommend it as a starting place.
For a more factual treatment, I'd recommend starting with the wikipedia article on "textual criticism" (the process of reconstructing documents from imperfect copies). Its section on the New Testament has a list of the major textual problems, most of which have their own wikipedia articles.
If you want to get into books, David Alan Black wrote a fairly nice introduction to New Testament textual criticism. Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland's books are both pretty widely respected as well. If you want to see the changes passage-by-passage during study, consider using the NET Bible (net.bible.org) and watching for notes marked "tc".
I wrote a commentary on a commentary of that. Getting meta, I know. :) But I think it's valid to consider both sides because Ehrman seems a bit misinformed about some things.
I guess their credibility is now completely out the window
and from a reply to this post:
There's no such as independent back there to begin with.
I find this to be incredibly annoying. Asimov's essay on relativity of wrong should be mandatory reading for people engaging in debates. People forget that even if people make mistakes the world is not black-and-white, not 0 or 1. There's a whole infinity inbetween. People often don't look beyond the fact that no one scores a 1 to see that there are some that are teetering terribly close to 0, a 0.1 maybe, while a few put in a lot of effort to be at a 0.9. This comes up so many times in debates it is not even funny anymore.
* When talking about both the left and the right, in American politics, having radical ideas. They completely overlook how radical these ideas are, and the amount of airtime given to them.
* When talking about bias in media. Sure Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central (if you view the Daily show as a news source) are biased in their own ways, but they're not equal.
* When talking about a few false steps in various scientific theories (which is what prompted Asimov to write his essay). Sure there are some unknown and possibly sticky problems with evolution, but that doesn't equate its incorrectness to the incorrectness of creationism (young-earth and otherwise) or intelligent design.
* When talking about anti-consumerist behavior. Sure Netflix, Apple, MSFT, and AT&T engage in anti-consumerist (or unpopular) behavior. That doesn't mean that they're all equally wrong, or equally short-sighted.
* When talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sure both sides are wrong, but that doesn't absolve either side of their respective faults.
Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani is the chairman of the board.
Sheikh Ahmad bin Jassim bin Mohammad Al Thani has been appointed as new director general.
Also[1] :
The U.S. State Department clearly views Al Jazeera as a tool of Qatar's foreign policy; one cable from November 2009 claims that the Persian Gulf state uses the channel "as a bargaining tool to repair relationships with other countries, particularly those soured by al-Jazeera's broadcasts, including the United States." Al Jazeera devotes suspiciously little time to covering the politics of the Gulf; for instance, after Qatar's rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, criticism of the Saudi royal family dropped dramatically.
Very few care anyway and those that know will forget. There's no such as independent back there to begin with. Even here NBC will probably back down on a story after a call from GE that may have a pending deal with X corp.
