I know everyone is joking about anabolic steroids being different than corticosteroids, but corticosteriods are on the WADA banned list, when administered, without a Therapeutic Use Exemption, every which way except topically. If people recall, Lance Armstrong was subjected to alot of criticism for using a corticosteroid cream for saddle sores during one Tour de France.

From the WADA's latest Prohibited List:

"S9. GLUCOCORTICOSTEROIDS
All glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered by oral, intravenous,
intramuscular or rectal routes.

In accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, a
declaration of use must be completed by the Athlete for glucocorticosteroids
administered by intraarticular, periarticular, peritendinous, epidural, intradermal
and inhalation routes, except as noted below.

Topical preparations when used for auricular, buccal, dermatological (including
iontophoresis/phonophoresis), gingival, nasal, ophthalmic and perianal disorders
are not prohibited and neither require a Therapeutic Use Exemption nor a
declaration of use. "

Congratulations, Doug, you win the Apple hit-whore prize!

DAM wrote: "The question is whether the financial strain of marketing the handset will hurt is sales longer term. If it becomes too much of a burden on AT&T and overseas carriers who market the new 3G version, some might make the decision to go to competing products which are more profitable."

Doug baby, haven't you been paying attention?!? AT&T does NOT market the iPhone. That's Apple's responsibility. Have you ever seen an AT&T ad that showed an iPhone on tv? Nope, nada, never.

Wow, got to love when those nutty conspiracy lovers post a comment. If it isn't Oliver Stone movies, it's pseudo-documentary movies.

If someone wanted to pay off GM to buy their electric cars, it would have cost over $1M to do so. What "rights" did GM violate? How did they take anyone's property? The cars never belonged to the guinea pigs. They signed away any rights they had to participate in the trial. If you think they can sue for "emotional distress" for a product that they didn't own, and for one that they had to sign away any rights, then you must live in California, and worship windchimes.

The only thing being admitted is that the world is a far different place than when GM made the EV1, when gas was much, much cheaper. And, who cares if GM is penalized, it's almost out of business already, or haven't you noticed. Sheesh, that Railian comet cult is looking for new members, have you submitted your application yet?

Here's a quick thought. If Apple drops to $60, then that would put their market cap at about $53B. Take away $20B in cash, leaves an operational value of $33B. Last 12 months, Apple made $3.5B, so that would value at about 9.5x trailing 12 months earnings. Wow, that's dirt cheap. Thanks Doug for figuring that out for us.

Hi, I'm NOT a PC, but I'm a PC user. Those other people are dolts!

Seems to me that it can't play podcasts in the background, which iTunes can do, which isn't as useful.

But, the reason I can see for not allowing this app, is that it could be a bandwidth hog over 3G. I get some huge video podcasts from the Washington Post, and TedTalks. If the 3G network is overtaxed now, imagine those people with NetShare or Podcaster using the same bandwidth.

And, can someone tell me is this a security breach? I mean couldn't malware be distributed by RSS? If there's no central access point like iTunes, wouldn't you be more vulnerable to a 3rd-party breach?

If that's the case, I can easily see why bandwidth and security would be cause for concern for Apple.

The question isn't whether Apple is a monopoly or not, as natural monopolies are LEGAL!

Rather, the question is whether Apple is an abusive monopoly, as MS was and why MS was sued by the DOJ? In that case, I'd say NOT. Apple has done nothing like what MS did to bring down the wrath of the DOJ.

Why do you assume an unsubstantiated report is fact? It seems nonsensical to turn off Wifi. How does it affect China Mobile? Until they announce something, I take the report as bad rumor.

Bring an "antitrust suit" on what grounds?

The only "antitrust suit" that might be filed would be Apple against the Big 4 labels for cartel-like behavior in allowing DRM-free tracks in the also-ran stores, while forcing DRM tracks on Apple.

Just another anti-Apple story from the Doug McIntyre, who continues to show his ignorance with silly misplaced comments about "antitrust suit"s.