Sounds like a sane byproduct of a sanely limited feature of the license to me.
That's sort of the standard make up of a loophole.
It's absolutely sane to exploit loopholes, but that sane action generally runs counter to the intention behind the rule being circumvented.
Web sites that do this clearly run counter to the intention of the GPL, thus it's a loophole. The problem fundamentally lies with the GPL, which is exactly the reason RMS and Moglen are addressing it with GPL v3.
The equivalent in Linux is an Oops. They don't happen that often on production systems.
This is sort of by definition. When they begin to Oops, kernel panic, or just silently reboot, they tend to quickly be taken out of production if the problem isn't readily fixed. Which is exactly the case with this specific Windows->Linux->Windows story.
A crappy properitary program doing things it's not supposed to is *not* a Linux problem nor an Open Source problem. It's SAP's problem.
In other words, SAP on Linux sucks, while SAP on Windows rocks. While it might technically not be Linux itself that is crashing (this is not obvious at all), it's the Linux system as a whole, including the required proprietary software, that is (in this specific case) far, *far* inferior to the equivalent Windows solution. This is definitely a problem *for* Linux. I mean, what exactly are they supposed to do? Stick with SAP on Linux and every time the system crashes, say to themselves, "this is not a Linux or Open Source problem," and pretend that somehow makes their problems non-existent?
Are you sure you want to artifically limit yourself by not using Flash?
Flash is sort of the obvious answer, and there are essentially no practical drawbacks to using it. I'm all for promoting freedom and openness, but if your primary goal is to create a 2d animation for people to see, Flash really is the way to go.
Not only that, but your hobby will also be spent learning a skill which can be very highly marketable.
Besides, I believe it's trivial to convert a flash animation into other, more traditional, video formats.
Now, if someone can get Vista working on MacOS X....
If you watch the PDC video where Gates and Allchin show off Vista, you'll see that you already *are* running Vista on your Mac.
Free (as in speech) doesn't mean better...
on
KDE Running on Mac OS X
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Finally, Mac users have a free (as in speech) approach to their filesystem.
1. KDE has been running on OS X for many years now. 2. cp, ls, mv, etc are open source, and have been available on OS X since the beginning. 3. KDE is nice, but I didn't buy a Mac so I could run KDE, I bought it so I could run OS X.
Which isn't to say it's not good to be able to run KDE if you want, just that I've never heard someone lament, "oh, that only there were some form of free (as in speech) approach to the filesystem on my Mac".
That said, I think that Christians can investigate the creation scientifically. We already know the WHO of the creation. But nothing is stopping us from finding out the HOW and WHY.
If you allow yourself to engage in such unscientific thinking that lead to your "knowing" who, you're likely to find yourself having trouble being scientific about the how and why.
For example, you may attempt to impute the why of something to "god's plan".
Or it may lead you to believe c really isn't a constant, since god can change it if he wants, or that Quantum Mechanics is flawed because "god does not play dice".
I mean, just imagine a science book that says, "the Earth's rotation is the cause of the day, in which the sun appears to circle the Earth every 24 hours, except when god decides to stop the sun in the sky."
You just can't do it. God and science just can't directly mix, because wherever the answer has been "god", science has always come back with, "no, it's this natural cause".
Of course, you may not suffer from any such problems, but the mere act of believing god as a scientific fact (who) stacks the odds against you.
Actually, it isn't. Bad example. It was known for years that the levees would break given an adequately severe storm.
But no one *knew* the levees were going to break *this time*, even if you know, statistically, that it will eventually happen. That's the technicality by which the statement is true.
Something that I've seen *a lot* in the last few years (and it's really disturbing) is people in power, in the face of insurmountable facts contrary to their position, find some logically true statement which sounds like it supports their position, then use that to "dismiss" all the opposing facts (especially to avoid responding to criticism). The disturbing thing isn't that people are trying to do that (although it is disappointing), what's disturbing is that it's actually working.
Anyway, Symantec's use of this tactic is nowhere near as bad as the levee example, but it's still the same basic flaw. That's why I brought it up as a comparison, and illustrates why I think it's appropriate for the Firefox guys to respond.
Why? I mean, i agree with you, but they didn't lie. From TFA:
The facts themselves are true, regarding the number of security alerts. But the facts have been misused recently by Symantec to claim that Firefox is just as insecure as IE, which is what the Firefox guy is responding to.
It's like the statement, "no one could have known the levees would break". It's factually true, but it's meant to make the listener believe a falsehood (that you can't fault someone for the abysmal response to the disaster in New Orleans). The facts Symantec have stated are true, but they've used them to try to convince the reader that switching to Firefox isn't going to help obviate the need for Norton Antivirus/Internet Security/AntiSpyware, and *that's* the lie.
Even if Symantec had added no commentary other than the numbers, it would be responsible for the Firefox team to point out why reality isn't what just those few numbers might lead the reader to assume.
just because mozilla can react quicker to security flaws found in its browser, doesn't make Symantec's report that greater security flaws are being found in Firefox less valid.
Yes, it does.
Symantec isn't just saying that Firefox has had a greater number of security flaws, they're saying that it means Firefox is just as insecure as IE.
This is just not true and Symantec deserves to be taken to task for this.
The lack of validity isn't in the fact itself, it's in the way the fact is being used to falsely support an incorrect conclusion.
As a corporation, they have a sharp sense of self preservation. Shocking, I say. Dammit, just shocking.
It may not be "shocking" that they are showing preferential bias towards their own product, but it is unacceptable that they are purposefully and significantly misrepresenting the facts.
We're not talking Pepsi saying they win in a blind taste-test, or Taco Bell saying hamburgers are blase, we're talking borderline fraud.
Yeah, I know, "welcome to the real world", and all that, but maybe, just maybe, if enough people point out these negative and anti-social actions, the world will turn out a little better than it otherwise would have.
Or maybe not, but it's certainly proper to try. What I don't understand is why you'd want to, if not explicitly at least implicitly, defend and promote the sort of thing Symantec is doing? You don't have to join the "revolution", but at least be decent enough not to stand in its way.
No. The OP tried to make the entire summary sound incorrect.
No, the OP said, "The summary is very conclusive that Apple failed to do something required by law. Though from TFA:"
In other words, he wasn't saying that the "entire summary" was incorrect, but that the conclusiveness the summary conveys isn't well supported.
Court documents appear to back this [Apple's failure of due diligence] up.
I agree, but that wasn't the point. The point wasn't that "Apple did no wrong", but that the basis of this claim is a lawyer in an adversarial role with Apple. The summary implies that Apple has been found guilty of failing to properly pursue due diligence, while the fact is that it's one lawyer's opinion.
Again, from the OP, "something stated by an opposing attoreny in the middle of a case shouldn't be taken as settled fact."
The word "settled" should be a clue that the OP doesn't say the fact is wrong, but that it's still in contention. The summary implies that this fact is settled, and not in contention.
The headline "Apple Fails Due Diligence" is speculation, even though its portrayed as fact.
I suspect it *is* fact, and hope Apple is appropriately dealt with. Still, the OP isn't wrong to point out the difference between a legal claim by an opposing party, and an established fact. And I don't think it was fair to call him a shill just because of that.
Ok...... I'll try again here with a different tact. And I will try to be more carefull of how I use my words. Reading back through I can see that I answered in a fairly slipshod manner.
You've cleared up the miscommunication with this post. The way I read your first post, it appeared you were saying that it's impossible for an evolutionist to believe dinosaurs could have had any form of superior physiology. It's clear from your sauropod example that you didn't mean "problem" in that way, but instead that it's a question that remains unresolved.
I originally was simply pointing out that pretty much any direction taken to answer how the hell this thing existed and that it was capable of flight causes problems with some theory or other be it evolution, geology, biology or something else.
Knowing now what you mean by "problems", it still reads like you're saying the facts surrounding the dinosaurs somehow invalidates those entire fields, as opposed to merely forcing refinement in some of the particular details of those fields.
I'm not sure if the problem is my inferring, or your implying, but either way, I agree with your point as I know see it.
Seriously - I really don't understand why the Apple Fans are defending Apple on this one. Apple crossed the line of reasonableness here, defending them means you've crossed the line from fan to shill.
I haven't seen a single person defend Apple on this one. The poster you just called a "shill" was merely pointing out that it's not established that Apple has legally failed to undertake due diligence. That's for a judge or jury to decide, *not* the legal opposition.
*Everyone* is upset that Apple sued the websites to cover up for their own internal problems. The difference is that some people are able to put this bad action into proper perspective, while others see it as proof that Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft.
Personally, I'm mad that Apple acted so badly, but since it's not their normal way of doing business, and because I find the company "does the right thing" more often than I've come to expect from most corporations, I'm not going to hang them for it.
But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view?... In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?
MS habitually throws its weight around, not caring at all about the effects on others, or the industry as a whole. The effects of MS's weight-throwing have been noticeably detrimental to us all.
Apple occasionally throws its weight around, and when it does, it's generally targeted with a limited scope, and doesn't adversely affect the industry, or me, all that much.
Not to defend Apple's abuse in this case--it's quite bad--but a transgression here and there is nothing compared to a company that makes every effort to utilize its ability to do such things as much as possible.
So, in short, it's not the same. Its a bad thing, but not an equivalent one.
I think that is a mistake. I use mhy phone as text reader and radio already, and I'd really hate going back to carry a separate device for that. I don't know what mp3 player will be my next one, but I do know it will be labeled as a telephone.
OK, so that's 1 nay, and 6 million/quarter yay.
Seriously, the iPod is a very, very nice music player. All current mp3 playing phones are nowhere near as good as a scroll-wheeled iPod.
Convergence is a nice thing, and I do like it, but the camera on cell phones aren't good enough to replace an actual digital camera, and the mp3 playing phones aren't good enough to replace an actual mp3 player.
Now, if you really aren't all that into photos or music, an mp3 picture phone might be just what you are looking for.
Personally, I prefer a tiny cellphone that's a *great* cellphone, a tiny mp3 player that's a *great* mp3 player and a tiny camera that's a *great* camera, over a large phone that's a pretty good phone, a crummy camera, and a passable mp3 player.
What happens if you want to upgrade your camera? Gotta buy a new 3-in-1. A new mp3 player? Buy a new 3-in-1. A new phone? Again, upgrade all three at once. It's a losing bargain. All you gain is one device over three, and as far as I'm concerned, it's really not that hard, at all, to carry all three around.
All you are doing is arguing by changing the meaning of words.
Most of the time, you use "best" (or "superior" or "advanced", etc), to mean something better able to do whatever it is it does. But when you want to pretend what I said was wrong, you change the meaning to "survived through natural selection." Then you "discover" a contradiction (the fact that sometimes, "better" does not win) and again, pretend that you have struck some insight.
You haven't. You're just playing loose with words.
You go even further, however, when you say things like, "For them it does present a problem if you suggest that dino's had a more capable ANYTHING than mammals," which is utter nonsense. NO actual evolutionary scientist has a problem with that. Any amateur science aficionado who believes that flawed notion of evolution is wrong, just as wrong as an amateur physics aficionado who believes that relativity is wrong, or that there's an ether, and should be granted the same amount of consideration (ie: none).
And please do read a bit closer. I did not equate robust and advanced.
Then which is it? I never said bacteria were less robust a species. I never even implied. So why bring it up? You did it to pretend what I said was wrong, which is to say, you equated the two to make a point.
I said that bacteria were less advanced than (for example), the dinosaurs. You said, "Actually in terms of survival that does make the bactieria more advanced... or at least more robust." If the two aren't equivalent for the purposes of your argument, then your argument is flawed. Adding a separate argument *doesn't* make the bacteria more advanced, and it *doesn't* make my statement wrong. You're just playing with words to pretend something that isn't true.
Actually in terms of survival that does make the bactieria more advanced... or at least more robust.
Robust != advanced. I *never* said that bacteria weren't highly suited to life on earth. All you've done is changed the meaning of the word "advanced". Clearly I wasn't referring to survivability, I was referring to complexity and ability, (as you were in your first post, and as you continue to do in this post--in fact, you only use "in terms of survival" once, right here, to pretend that what I said was wrong).
But when 99% of historical context says stronger bones and muscles would be a better thing I think you can make the argument that the dinosaurs may have been a case of a higher biology that failed...
Which, amazingly, contradicts what you wrote, not what I wrote.
I pointed out that more advanced species can, indeed, lose out to lesser species, without violating evolution (or natural selection), while you, on the other hand, stated that this fact would "get the evolution camp up in arms".
So I'm unclear. Are you now agreeing with me and trying to pretend it was your point all along, and that I said the exact opposite of what I actually wrote?
My whole point really was that we don't know and that it is interesting.
That doesn't seem like your whole point, but I do agree that it's quite interesting.
But there is a serious problem here in if there was some stronger biological capacity for the dinosaurs that would mean a more fit evolutionary deveolpment lost out to a less fit one.
That makes no sense. Fitness isn't some abstract thing, it must be taken in context. Better bones and musculature (as a possible case) doesn't mean you'll survive if some other weakness is exploited.
For example, there are bacteria that have out-survived every extinct creature that has ever lived. That doesn't make the bacteria more advanced, nor does it make evolution wrong.
So that gets the evolution camp up in arms.
That's pretty much everyone within the realm of the debate. The number of paleontologists (and scientists in general) who do not subscribe to evolution is, I'm certain, in the same crack-pot range as physicists (and scientists in general) who do not "believe" in relativity.
In other words, it's a non-issue, especially given that it doesn't violate evolution or natural selection at all.
The word can be used to refer to a government's capacity to control its own affairs, but that's a more limited and specific usage.
Which is exactly the usage of the word we are talking about in this thread. Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?
Right now, the US holds sovereignty over Iraq. That obviously precludes Iraq from being sovereign, doesn't it? So when you said, "In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation," you were absolutely wrong.
Buy a dictionary.
Don't need to, I already have multiple, and I've checked one. Have you?
Two points to remember people: first, the USA didn't invent the constitution overnight, it really took years of wrangling prior to the Declaration of Independce straight on through the Bill of Rights afterwards and if you really want to get into the lineage of it, it goes back before the Magna Carta. Representative democracy isn't something that happens overnight and it takes a while to be embraced and become something people love and understand the give and take of.
That's why people were saying this war would last years, even though the President pretended like it would be a few months, and that the Iraqis would self-rule in time for the troops to be home by Christmas.
That asshole deserves all the "static" he gets. If the American people were told, upfront, the true cost of the war, we'd never, ever have agreed to it.
This war costs about a billion dollars per day (over a trillion every three years--that's 1 trillion dollars not spent on us, the people of the US, from whom the money was taken/given. This war has costs thousands of American lives (you only get on the "official" count if you die in action and in Iraq. If you die from wounds en route to Germany, for example, you don't get added to the list), tens of thousands of American's have been wounded and maimed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, wounded, or maimed.
There's no way the American public would have heard that and said, "yeah, that's what we want." And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that the basis of the war was a lie (either deliberate, or through willfully accepting information just because it served the President's desire to invade Iraq).
It will take a while. But it is far better than being ruled by a guy who was running the place as if he was a two-dimensional stock enemy from a Golan-Globus film or for the ones requiring a recent example, as if they were Howard Saint in The Punisher.
No, it's not better. It should be, but it's not. The current situation is Iraq is worse than it was pre-invasion (and it was horrible back then!). Going into the future, it's highly likely that Iraq will become a theocracy (more so than under Saddam), with three highly antagonistic factions vying for power, none of which really give a damn about true democracy.
In other words, just because Saddam was an evil tyrant, it doesn't logically follow that toppling him ensures his replacement is going to be better.
Yeah, things were much better when the legal system was the torture and execution of anyone who looked at the leadership funny.
That's what you lot don't get. It actually was better then! Now, people get killed by the US, they get killed by the insurgents, they get killed by the terrorists.
Before, there was a legal system that was at least capable of supporting a thriving modern city. Now, women are afraid to go out in public without a burqa for fear of physical assault. And there's no way the so-called "Iraqi Police" force is going to be able to do anything about that while they are busy being shot at and bombed.
Then there's the ever-increasing possibility of replacing Saddam's regime, which, as bad as it was (and it was terrible), with something even worse--a theocracy. And not just your standard theocracy, but a highly unstable one with three strongly opposed factions.
If Iraq is better off in 2012 than it was in 2002, I'll be amazed, and being a proud American, that makes me sad, ashamed, and angry.
In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation, it just depended on who held the sovereignty.
Sovereignty refers to the country ruling itself, and not being ruled from afar or by another power.
Don't worry, the President had the same problem you have. When asked about tribal (Native American) sovereignty in the 21st century, he replied, "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a... you're a... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."
So, when Ford deliberately killed people with the Pinto, it was sentenced to life in prison?
When Microsoft was convicted of a felony which adversely affected hundreds of millions of people, the case was dropped because MS is such an upstanding citizen which only committed the felony by accident, and will never do such a thing again?
Face it, the American system favors corporations over people far more often than the reverse. Two big factors in this are:
1. The corporation has all the rights of a citizen (under a completely deranged Supreme Court ruling long ago), yet aren't saddled with the obligations a private citizen has.
2. Certain economic ideologies (which the current administration has taken to an extreme) place the economy at the pinnacle of its earthly moral system, and so treat the corporation as something of a deity to be served by man, instead of being a system which exists solely to serve man.
Gauging actually helps-- it brings in more supply to service that demand, and ultimately prices go down FASTER when the free market is allowed.
In other words, if you allow the poor to starve to death, and the slightly-less poor to spend everything they've got (which, at the moment, probably isn't much--you know, having had their possessions destroyed by a hurricane and all), etc, prices will eventually drop... WHEN IT NO LONGER MATTERS?!?!
You'd favor the free market (ie: a system) over actual people? This isn't an academic exercise of "what's the most efficient system?", it's people's actual lives.
Remember, slavery, the "company store", sweatshops, and the mafia are all "free market" systems too. Our systems (economic, political, etc) all exist for the sole purpose of serving people, and that's the only proper way to evaluate them. What sort of effect on the people (and society) does price gouging have?
The universe doesn't care about ideologies, or cute little theories that are self-consistent, it works the way it works, and if you gouge people in times of need, it's absolutely *insane* to believe that's going to be good for all parties involved, regardless of whatever your fantasies on economics might be.
The free market really only works when all parties have equivalent rights and freedoms. When your house has just been destroyed, and your paychecks are no longer coming in, you've just lost an overwhelming amount of freedom. It's the ability to chose which is one of the pillars of a healthy free market. With that gone, only then can you price gouge (in the sense we are talking about here).
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a sane byproduct of a sanely limited feature of the license to me.
That's sort of the standard make up of a loophole.
It's absolutely sane to exploit loopholes, but that sane action generally runs counter to the intention behind the rule being circumvented.
Web sites that do this clearly run counter to the intention of the GPL, thus it's a loophole. The problem fundamentally lies with the GPL, which is exactly the reason RMS and Moglen are addressing it with GPL v3.
Open Source Software is the free-market response to closed, expensive software. THAT is what the author does not understand.
I think the part that threw him off is that the free market created something that's actually free.
The equivalent in Linux is an Oops. They don't happen that often on production systems.
This is sort of by definition. When they begin to Oops, kernel panic, or just silently reboot, they tend to quickly be taken out of production if the problem isn't readily fixed. Which is exactly the case with this specific Windows->Linux->Windows story.
A crappy properitary program doing things it's not supposed to is *not* a Linux problem nor an Open Source problem. It's SAP's problem.
In other words, SAP on Linux sucks, while SAP on Windows rocks. While it might technically not be Linux itself that is crashing (this is not obvious at all), it's the Linux system as a whole, including the required proprietary software, that is (in this specific case) far, *far* inferior to the equivalent Windows solution. This is definitely a problem *for* Linux. I mean, what exactly are they supposed to do? Stick with SAP on Linux and every time the system crashes, say to themselves, "this is not a Linux or Open Source problem," and pretend that somehow makes their problems non-existent?
Are you sure you want to artifically limit yourself by not using Flash?
Flash is sort of the obvious answer, and there are essentially no practical drawbacks to using it. I'm all for promoting freedom and openness, but if your primary goal is to create a 2d animation for people to see, Flash really is the way to go.
Not only that, but your hobby will also be spent learning a skill which can be very highly marketable.
Besides, I believe it's trivial to convert a flash animation into other, more traditional, video formats.
Now, if someone can get Vista working on MacOS X....
If you watch the PDC video where Gates and Allchin show off Vista, you'll see that you already *are* running Vista on your Mac.
Finally, Mac users have a free (as in speech) approach to their filesystem.
1. KDE has been running on OS X for many years now.
2. cp, ls, mv, etc are open source, and have been available on OS X since the beginning.
3. KDE is nice, but I didn't buy a Mac so I could run KDE, I bought it so I could run OS X.
Which isn't to say it's not good to be able to run KDE if you want, just that I've never heard someone lament, "oh, that only there were some form of free (as in speech) approach to the filesystem on my Mac".
That said, I think that Christians can investigate the creation scientifically. We already know the WHO of the creation. But nothing is stopping us from finding out the HOW and WHY.
If you allow yourself to engage in such unscientific thinking that lead to your "knowing" who, you're likely to find yourself having trouble being scientific about the how and why.
For example, you may attempt to impute the why of something to "god's plan".
Or it may lead you to believe c really isn't a constant, since god can change it if he wants, or that Quantum Mechanics is flawed because "god does not play dice".
I mean, just imagine a science book that says, "the Earth's rotation is the cause of the day, in which the sun appears to circle the Earth every 24 hours, except when god decides to stop the sun in the sky."
You just can't do it. God and science just can't directly mix, because wherever the answer has been "god", science has always come back with, "no, it's this natural cause".
Of course, you may not suffer from any such problems, but the mere act of believing god as a scientific fact (who) stacks the odds against you.
Actually, it isn't. Bad example. It was known for years that the levees would break given an adequately severe storm.
But no one *knew* the levees were going to break *this time*, even if you know, statistically, that it will eventually happen. That's the technicality by which the statement is true.
Something that I've seen *a lot* in the last few years (and it's really disturbing) is people in power, in the face of insurmountable facts contrary to their position, find some logically true statement which sounds like it supports their position, then use that to "dismiss" all the opposing facts (especially to avoid responding to criticism). The disturbing thing isn't that people are trying to do that (although it is disappointing), what's disturbing is that it's actually working.
Anyway, Symantec's use of this tactic is nowhere near as bad as the levee example, but it's still the same basic flaw. That's why I brought it up as a comparison, and illustrates why I think it's appropriate for the Firefox guys to respond.
Why? I mean, i agree with you, but they didn't lie. From TFA:
The facts themselves are true, regarding the number of security alerts. But the facts have been misused recently by Symantec to claim that Firefox is just as insecure as IE, which is what the Firefox guy is responding to.
It's like the statement, "no one could have known the levees would break". It's factually true, but it's meant to make the listener believe a falsehood (that you can't fault someone for the abysmal response to the disaster in New Orleans). The facts Symantec have stated are true, but they've used them to try to convince the reader that switching to Firefox isn't going to help obviate the need for Norton Antivirus/Internet Security/AntiSpyware, and *that's* the lie.
Even if Symantec had added no commentary other than the numbers, it would be responsible for the Firefox team to point out why reality isn't what just those few numbers might lead the reader to assume.
just because mozilla can react quicker to security flaws found in its browser, doesn't make Symantec's report that greater security flaws are being found in Firefox less valid.
Yes, it does.
Symantec isn't just saying that Firefox has had a greater number of security flaws, they're saying that it means Firefox is just as insecure as IE.
This is just not true and Symantec deserves to be taken to task for this.
The lack of validity isn't in the fact itself, it's in the way the fact is being used to falsely support an incorrect conclusion.
As a corporation, they have a sharp sense of self preservation. Shocking, I say. Dammit, just shocking.
It may not be "shocking" that they are showing preferential bias towards their own product, but it is unacceptable that they are purposefully and significantly misrepresenting the facts.
We're not talking Pepsi saying they win in a blind taste-test, or Taco Bell saying hamburgers are blase, we're talking borderline fraud.
Yeah, I know, "welcome to the real world", and all that, but maybe, just maybe, if enough people point out these negative and anti-social actions, the world will turn out a little better than it otherwise would have.
Or maybe not, but it's certainly proper to try. What I don't understand is why you'd want to, if not explicitly at least implicitly, defend and promote the sort of thing Symantec is doing? You don't have to join the "revolution", but at least be decent enough not to stand in its way.
No. The OP tried to make the entire summary sound incorrect.
No, the OP said, "The summary is very conclusive that Apple failed to do something required by law. Though from TFA:"
In other words, he wasn't saying that the "entire summary" was incorrect, but that the conclusiveness the summary conveys isn't well supported.
Court documents appear to back this [Apple's failure of due diligence] up.
I agree, but that wasn't the point. The point wasn't that "Apple did no wrong", but that the basis of this claim is a lawyer in an adversarial role with Apple. The summary implies that Apple has been found guilty of failing to properly pursue due diligence, while the fact is that it's one lawyer's opinion.
Again, from the OP, "something stated by an opposing attoreny in the middle of a case shouldn't be taken as settled fact."
The word "settled" should be a clue that the OP doesn't say the fact is wrong, but that it's still in contention. The summary implies that this fact is settled, and not in contention.
The headline "Apple Fails Due Diligence" is speculation, even though its portrayed as fact.
I suspect it *is* fact, and hope Apple is appropriately dealt with. Still, the OP isn't wrong to point out the difference between a legal claim by an opposing party, and an established fact. And I don't think it was fair to call him a shill just because of that.
Ok...... I'll try again here with a different tact. And I will try to be more carefull of how I use my words. Reading back through I can see that I answered in a fairly slipshod manner.
You've cleared up the miscommunication with this post. The way I read your first post, it appeared you were saying that it's impossible for an evolutionist to believe dinosaurs could have had any form of superior physiology. It's clear from your sauropod example that you didn't mean "problem" in that way, but instead that it's a question that remains unresolved.
I originally was simply pointing out that pretty much any direction taken to answer how the hell this thing existed and that it was capable of flight causes problems with some theory or other be it evolution, geology, biology or something else.
Knowing now what you mean by "problems", it still reads like you're saying the facts surrounding the dinosaurs somehow invalidates those entire fields, as opposed to merely forcing refinement in some of the particular details of those fields.
I'm not sure if the problem is my inferring, or your implying, but either way, I agree with your point as I know see it.
Seriously - I really don't understand why the Apple Fans are defending Apple on this one. Apple crossed the line of reasonableness here, defending them means you've crossed the line from fan to shill.
I haven't seen a single person defend Apple on this one. The poster you just called a "shill" was merely pointing out that it's not established that Apple has legally failed to undertake due diligence. That's for a judge or jury to decide, *not* the legal opposition.
*Everyone* is upset that Apple sued the websites to cover up for their own internal problems. The difference is that some people are able to put this bad action into proper perspective, while others see it as proof that Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft.
Personally, I'm mad that Apple acted so badly, but since it's not their normal way of doing business, and because I find the company "does the right thing" more often than I've come to expect from most corporations, I'm not going to hang them for it.
But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view? ...
In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?
MS habitually throws its weight around, not caring at all about the effects on others, or the industry as a whole. The effects of MS's weight-throwing have been noticeably detrimental to us all.
Apple occasionally throws its weight around, and when it does, it's generally targeted with a limited scope, and doesn't adversely affect the industry, or me, all that much.
Not to defend Apple's abuse in this case--it's quite bad--but a transgression here and there is nothing compared to a company that makes every effort to utilize its ability to do such things as much as possible.
So, in short, it's not the same. Its a bad thing, but not an equivalent one.
I think that is a mistake. I use mhy phone as text reader and radio already, and I'd really hate going back to carry a separate device for that. I don't know what mp3 player will be my next one, but I do know it will be labeled as a telephone.
OK, so that's 1 nay, and 6 million/quarter yay.
Seriously, the iPod is a very, very nice music player. All current mp3 playing phones are nowhere near as good as a scroll-wheeled iPod.
Convergence is a nice thing, and I do like it, but the camera on cell phones aren't good enough to replace an actual digital camera, and the mp3 playing phones aren't good enough to replace an actual mp3 player.
Now, if you really aren't all that into photos or music, an mp3 picture phone might be just what you are looking for.
Personally, I prefer a tiny cellphone that's a *great* cellphone, a tiny mp3 player that's a *great* mp3 player and a tiny camera that's a *great* camera, over a large phone that's a pretty good phone, a crummy camera, and a passable mp3 player.
What happens if you want to upgrade your camera? Gotta buy a new 3-in-1. A new mp3 player? Buy a new 3-in-1. A new phone? Again, upgrade all three at once. It's a losing bargain. All you gain is one device over three, and as far as I'm concerned, it's really not that hard, at all, to carry all three around.
All you are doing is arguing by changing the meaning of words.
Most of the time, you use "best" (or "superior" or "advanced", etc), to mean something better able to do whatever it is it does. But when you want to pretend what I said was wrong, you change the meaning to "survived through natural selection." Then you "discover" a contradiction (the fact that sometimes, "better" does not win) and again, pretend that you have struck some insight.
You haven't. You're just playing loose with words.
You go even further, however, when you say things like, "For them it does present a problem if you suggest that dino's had a more capable ANYTHING than mammals," which is utter nonsense. NO actual evolutionary scientist has a problem with that. Any amateur science aficionado who believes that flawed notion of evolution is wrong, just as wrong as an amateur physics aficionado who believes that relativity is wrong, or that there's an ether, and should be granted the same amount of consideration (ie: none).
And please do read a bit closer. I did not equate robust and advanced.
Then which is it? I never said bacteria were less robust a species. I never even implied. So why bring it up? You did it to pretend what I said was wrong, which is to say, you equated the two to make a point.
I said that bacteria were less advanced than (for example), the dinosaurs. You said, "Actually in terms of survival that does make the bactieria more advanced... or at least more robust." If the two aren't equivalent for the purposes of your argument, then your argument is flawed. Adding a separate argument *doesn't* make the bacteria more advanced, and it *doesn't* make my statement wrong. You're just playing with words to pretend something that isn't true.
Actually in terms of survival that does make the bactieria more advanced... or at least more robust.
Robust != advanced. I *never* said that bacteria weren't highly suited to life on earth. All you've done is changed the meaning of the word "advanced". Clearly I wasn't referring to survivability, I was referring to complexity and ability, (as you were in your first post, and as you continue to do in this post--in fact, you only use "in terms of survival" once, right here, to pretend that what I said was wrong).
But when 99% of historical context says stronger bones and muscles would be a better thing I think you can make the argument that the dinosaurs may have been a case of a higher biology that failed...
Which, amazingly, contradicts what you wrote, not what I wrote.
I pointed out that more advanced species can, indeed, lose out to lesser species, without violating evolution (or natural selection), while you, on the other hand, stated that this fact would "get the evolution camp up in arms".
So I'm unclear. Are you now agreeing with me and trying to pretend it was your point all along, and that I said the exact opposite of what I actually wrote?
My whole point really was that we don't know and that it is interesting.
That doesn't seem like your whole point, but I do agree that it's quite interesting.
But there is a serious problem here in if there was some stronger biological capacity for the dinosaurs that would mean a more fit evolutionary deveolpment lost out to a less fit one.
That makes no sense. Fitness isn't some abstract thing, it must be taken in context. Better bones and musculature (as a possible case) doesn't mean you'll survive if some other weakness is exploited.
For example, there are bacteria that have out-survived every extinct creature that has ever lived. That doesn't make the bacteria more advanced, nor does it make evolution wrong.
So that gets the evolution camp up in arms.
That's pretty much everyone within the realm of the debate. The number of paleontologists (and scientists in general) who do not subscribe to evolution is, I'm certain, in the same crack-pot range as physicists (and scientists in general) who do not "believe" in relativity.
In other words, it's a non-issue, especially given that it doesn't violate evolution or natural selection at all.
The word can be used to refer to a government's capacity to control its own affairs, but that's a more limited and specific usage.
Which is exactly the usage of the word we are talking about in this thread. Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?
Right now, the US holds sovereignty over Iraq. That obviously precludes Iraq from being sovereign, doesn't it? So when you said, "In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation," you were absolutely wrong.
Buy a dictionary.
Don't need to, I already have multiple, and I've checked one. Have you?
Two points to remember people: first, the USA didn't invent the constitution overnight, it really took years of wrangling prior to the Declaration of Independce straight on through the Bill of Rights afterwards and if you really want to get into the lineage of it, it goes back before the Magna Carta. Representative democracy isn't something that happens overnight and it takes a while to be embraced and become something people love and understand the give and take of.
That's why people were saying this war would last years, even though the President pretended like it would be a few months, and that the Iraqis would self-rule in time for the troops to be home by Christmas.
That asshole deserves all the "static" he gets. If the American people were told, upfront, the true cost of the war, we'd never, ever have agreed to it.
This war costs about a billion dollars per day (over a trillion every three years--that's 1 trillion dollars not spent on us, the people of the US, from whom the money was taken/given. This war has costs thousands of American lives (you only get on the "official" count if you die in action and in Iraq. If you die from wounds en route to Germany, for example, you don't get added to the list), tens of thousands of American's have been wounded and maimed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, wounded, or maimed.
There's no way the American public would have heard that and said, "yeah, that's what we want." And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that the basis of the war was a lie (either deliberate, or through willfully accepting information just because it served the President's desire to invade Iraq).
It will take a while. But it is far better than being ruled by a guy who was running the place as if he was a two-dimensional stock enemy from a Golan-Globus film or for the ones requiring a recent example, as if they were Howard Saint in The Punisher.
No, it's not better. It should be, but it's not. The current situation is Iraq is worse than it was pre-invasion (and it was horrible back then!). Going into the future, it's highly likely that Iraq will become a theocracy (more so than under Saddam), with three highly antagonistic factions vying for power, none of which really give a damn about true democracy.
In other words, just because Saddam was an evil tyrant, it doesn't logically follow that toppling him ensures his replacement is going to be better.
Yeah, things were much better when the legal system was the torture and execution of anyone who looked at the leadership funny.
That's what you lot don't get. It actually was better then! Now, people get killed by the US, they get killed by the insurgents, they get killed by the terrorists.
Before, there was a legal system that was at least capable of supporting a thriving modern city. Now, women are afraid to go out in public without a burqa for fear of physical assault. And there's no way the so-called "Iraqi Police" force is going to be able to do anything about that while they are busy being shot at and bombed.
Then there's the ever-increasing possibility of replacing Saddam's regime, which, as bad as it was (and it was terrible), with something even worse--a theocracy. And not just your standard theocracy, but a highly unstable one with three strongly opposed factions.
If Iraq is better off in 2012 than it was in 2002, I'll be amazed, and being a proud American, that makes me sad, ashamed, and angry.
In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation, it just depended on who held the sovereignty.
... you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."
Sovereignty refers to the country ruling itself, and not being ruled from afar or by another power.
Don't worry, the President had the same problem you have. When asked about tribal (Native American) sovereignty in the 21st century, he replied, "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a
So, when Ford deliberately killed people with the Pinto, it was sentenced to life in prison?
When Microsoft was convicted of a felony which adversely affected hundreds of millions of people, the case was dropped because MS is such an upstanding citizen which only committed the felony by accident, and will never do such a thing again?
Face it, the American system favors corporations over people far more often than the reverse. Two big factors in this are:
1. The corporation has all the rights of a citizen (under a completely deranged Supreme Court ruling long ago), yet aren't saddled with the obligations a private citizen has.
2. Certain economic ideologies (which the current administration has taken to an extreme) place the economy at the pinnacle of its earthly moral system, and so treat the corporation as something of a deity to be served by man, instead of being a system which exists solely to serve man.
Gauging actually helps-- it brings in more supply to service that demand, and ultimately prices go down FASTER when the free market is allowed.
In other words, if you allow the poor to starve to death, and the slightly-less poor to spend everything they've got (which, at the moment, probably isn't much--you know, having had their possessions destroyed by a hurricane and all), etc, prices will eventually drop... WHEN IT NO LONGER MATTERS?!?!
You'd favor the free market (ie: a system) over actual people? This isn't an academic exercise of "what's the most efficient system?", it's people's actual lives.
Remember, slavery, the "company store", sweatshops, and the mafia are all "free market" systems too. Our systems (economic, political, etc) all exist for the sole purpose of serving people, and that's the only proper way to evaluate them. What sort of effect on the people (and society) does price gouging have?
The universe doesn't care about ideologies, or cute little theories that are self-consistent, it works the way it works, and if you gouge people in times of need, it's absolutely *insane* to believe that's going to be good for all parties involved, regardless of whatever your fantasies on economics might be.
The free market really only works when all parties have equivalent rights and freedoms. When your house has just been destroyed, and your paychecks are no longer coming in, you've just lost an overwhelming amount of freedom. It's the ability to chose which is one of the pillars of a healthy free market. With that gone, only then can you price gouge (in the sense we are talking about here).
Go to hell, you are degrading my society.