If by "challenged" you mean "apple got a free pass from content companies while they tried really hard to sue everyone to oblivion", sure.
Reality is, apple was essentially tried to be pushed as a monopoly by both of above parties. In the end, this alliance collapsed both because apple was essentially fucking content guys over by selling songs dirt cheap and making profits on hardware as well as because once DRM-free stuff was actually getting traction officially, peer-pressure argument of "omg, non-ipod player you dirty criminal pirate" watered down.
But to argue that "apple created a market" when all it did was legally strong arm everyone else with help of its allies to monopolize existing vibrant media player market is revisionist on the level of "Germany tried to create wonderful and peaceful world by trying to unify Europe in WW2".
Rather strange how apple revisionists seem to completely fail at even basic google and wikipedia searching. Have you tried asking Siri? Because she's likely tell you to go to the link below and find out that apple was in fact four years behind the companies that "created the market". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_media_player
Your argument is exactly the same as arguing that Hitler in his fascism drive essentially supported same right wing policies you currently see in certain right wing parties.
It's a bad argument for all the same reasons that above argument is a bad one. Because projecting that some party many people do not like held some views that coincide with another party's views certainly does not mean there is a reverse link even though the argument implies such a link.
I call them issues of ethics. You have to assign values to things and decide which one is more valuable. In case of abortion, it's a value of a foetus vs a value of choice over your own body after insemination. Most countries already assign specific values - abortion for "social reasons" is typically limited to a few weeks to a few months after insemination and forbidden afterwards.
These are very culture dependent regardless. Most people miss for example that many "christian" values are in fact cultural values that got ingrained into christianity by local culture as to make christianity more acceptable to general public, and many of the beliefs you talk about are not about religion but about local culture in general.
Personally I find the abortion laws in my country quite reasonable. You can abort in first 12 weeks for social reasons, and after that you can abort if doctor views pregnancy dangerous for mother's health or if foetus has serious health issues. In another country, these would be viewed too restricting, and in yet another they would be viewed as too lax. And we still haven't officially separated church and state here, believe it or not (Finland).
You misunderstand. Theocracy means that religion is in power. Not just religious following a reasonably secular law. As in religious law is the law of the land.
America is very VERY far away from being a theocracy. It can perhaps be called a fascist state if you stretch your imagination enough (conglomerates are in power drafting laws). But not theocracy (religion is the law).
You mix "had to belong to a religious community because of how human society functioned at that time" and "actually religious person that represented the mainstream of his religion at the time".
These two are often at each others' throats. Galilei was certainly a christian because times demanded it. But he was very much against what christianity viewed as acceptable.
Actually, the concepts were developed by phisolophers in ancient Greece, and further developed by intellectuals of French Revolution and adapted by "religious people" of US.
Except that religion had nothing to do with it. On the other hand religion had and still has a lot to do with suppression of such movements. This is a consistent trend throughout the history because the main use of religion is control of the masses.
They treat women like that in Amish communities in US as well. Pehaps they don't circumsize them, but they certainly treat them like slaves. I don't think they circumsize women in Pakistan either though. That's an certain subset of African islam and local religions that does it.
May I suggest you start your crusade by cleaning your own backyard?
Our problem at the moment is how to supply electricity needed to run the engine. In ICE, we have a whole bunch of dangerous, highly flammable and explosive fluid sitting in the back of the car.
In a EE we have an extremely heavy chemical battery that doesn't have nearly as much energy density as liquid combustible fuel at the moment. Heavy duty solutions are either wired access to central grid or running ICE on stable best efficiency RPM to rotate generator which will supply electricity to EE. These are not great options for a personal transportation. Essentially we have a vastly superior engine technology limited by inferior energy storage. If/when energy storage issue is even partially solved, the vast superiority of engine technology will eventually take over.
Asking for it RIGHT NOW is kind of like asking for something better then a horse back in early automotive days when fuel efficiency was horrible and fuelling stations weren't yet widespread. "But my horse can be fed at the stables which are everywhere, and won't strand me in the middle of nowhere like that terrible contraption of yours". We've been there, we've done it, and we've seen where it ends. At certain point, the technology becomes good enough to displace older methods. In our case, there is an additional factor of pollution and supply chain risks effecting the fuel supply for ICE which do not exist in near the same magnitude for EE.
The problem of energy storage is not yet solved, as stated in the last paragraph of the post you quoted. Therefore, none.
Granted, with your attention span I would recommend not driving a vehicle at all. If you can't hold attention long enough before hitting reply with quote to read through the entire thing you're going to quote, you must be one hell of a risk factor to both yourself and other drivers when behind the wheel on long rides.
Would still pollute a whole lot less actually. Coal power plants, while very "dirty" by power plant standards, are exceptionally clean by automotive standards.
Indeed, how do those huge, mining transportation trucks ever power themselves. Or trains. Surely not with electric motors?
Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines. They have far better range of high torque, far higher torque, far simpler engine designs resulting in having a lot less points of failure and cheap maintenance.
The only problem they have right now is energy storage density. Everything else, electric engines demolish ICE:s on. That is why those huge mining haulers actually run on electric engines which are powered by diesel generators rather then hooking those diesels directly to the wheels.
No, but it will mean intense scrutiny of every action they will take due to monopolist position. You want to buy a company? Present a shiltoad of paperwork that you're not leveraging monopoly. You want to make a major business decision? Present paperwork that it's not leveraging monopoly. You want to sneeze? Present paperwork. Did you paperwork show signs of leveraging? Time to break you up.
That is why microsoft saved apple. It may be a convicted monopolist, but it's still nowhere near being a full monopoly. The more of a grip you have, the less freedom you have to make business decisions. It's a very dangerous path to take.
It would be a very difficult argument to get through to the judges, as x86 largely rules desktop and laptop regardless of the "please count tablets, phones, microwave ovens and cars as computers, PRETTY PLEASE" crowd. These aren't people who will be convinced by PR as easily as the masses.
It's not just that. Intel won't let AMD die, just like MS didn't let Apple die. They can't. If they remained the sole major x86 manufacturer, anti-monopoly regulation agencies would demolish Intel and they know it. They need some minor competition to keep regulators reasonably lax.
Get E450 desktop/laptop. These are amazing for office needs. Not too slow to decode HD youtube, got built in low end radeon, has a minuscule power draw of around 18W. When in comes to low power semi-performance, AMD really leads right now. It's just not a very profitable segment.
(Typing this from E450 15" cheapo laptop while sitting in LoL queue)
Hence, "judaism-sourced religions". It's a rather funny distinction too, as judaism's dogma was in fact about "one nationality above others" while both christianity and islam accepted the "people who believe in god over others" as a dogma hence allowing for conversion. It essentially shows just how powerful of a control tool judaism was that with just a few modifications it allowed for ideological unification of entire continents.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "challenged" you mean "apple got a free pass from content companies while they tried really hard to sue everyone to oblivion", sure.
Reality is, apple was essentially tried to be pushed as a monopoly by both of above parties. In the end, this alliance collapsed both because apple was essentially fucking content guys over by selling songs dirt cheap and making profits on hardware as well as because once DRM-free stuff was actually getting traction officially, peer-pressure argument of "omg, non-ipod player you dirty criminal pirate" watered down.
But to argue that "apple created a market" when all it did was legally strong arm everyone else with help of its allies to monopolize existing vibrant media player market is revisionist on the level of "Germany tried to create wonderful and peaceful world by trying to unify Europe in WW2".
Rather strange how apple revisionists seem to completely fail at even basic google and wikipedia searching. Have you tried asking Siri? Because she's likely tell you to go to the link below and find out that apple was in fact four years behind the companies that "created the market".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_media_player
"Market that apple created"?
That's some hardcore revisionism. I owned mp3 players that used flash memory long before ipod.
Your argument is exactly the same as arguing that Hitler in his fascism drive essentially supported same right wing policies you currently see in certain right wing parties.
It's a bad argument for all the same reasons that above argument is a bad one. Because projecting that some party many people do not like held some views that coincide with another party's views certainly does not mean there is a reverse link even though the argument implies such a link.
Some people have different priorities.
I call them issues of ethics. You have to assign values to things and decide which one is more valuable. In case of abortion, it's a value of a foetus vs a value of choice over your own body after insemination. Most countries already assign specific values - abortion for "social reasons" is typically limited to a few weeks to a few months after insemination and forbidden afterwards.
These are very culture dependent regardless. Most people miss for example that many "christian" values are in fact cultural values that got ingrained into christianity by local culture as to make christianity more acceptable to general public, and many of the beliefs you talk about are not about religion but about local culture in general.
Personally I find the abortion laws in my country quite reasonable. You can abort in first 12 weeks for social reasons, and after that you can abort if doctor views pregnancy dangerous for mother's health or if foetus has serious health issues. In another country, these would be viewed too restricting, and in yet another they would be viewed as too lax. And we still haven't officially separated church and state here, believe it or not (Finland).
You misunderstand. Theocracy means that religion is in power. Not just religious following a reasonably secular law. As in religious law is the law of the land.
America is very VERY far away from being a theocracy. It can perhaps be called a fascist state if you stretch your imagination enough (conglomerates are in power drafting laws). But not theocracy (religion is the law).
You mix "had to belong to a religious community because of how human society functioned at that time" and "actually religious person that represented the mainstream of his religion at the time".
These two are often at each others' throats. Galilei was certainly a christian because times demanded it. But he was very much against what christianity viewed as acceptable.
Actually, the concepts were developed by phisolophers in ancient Greece, and further developed by intellectuals of French Revolution and adapted by "religious people" of US.
Except that religion had nothing to do with it. On the other hand religion had and still has a lot to do with suppression of such movements. This is a consistent trend throughout the history because the main use of religion is control of the masses.
They treat women like that in Amish communities in US as well. Pehaps they don't circumsize them, but they certainly treat them like slaves. I don't think they circumsize women in Pakistan either though. That's an certain subset of African islam and local religions that does it.
May I suggest you start your crusade by cleaning your own backyard?
Because democrats are the group of people he doesn't like. As are Westboro baptists.
Therefore, they are clearly supporting each other.
Considering the ever incoming scandals with catholics abusing the kids in schools and orphanages, I'd say quite a few take that creed literally.
Just because a Volkswagen is a car, doesn't mean that all cars are Volkswagens.
Theocracy means religion(religious) is the ruling political power. So pretty much "duh".
Is fuel tank a part of ICE?
Is a battery part of EE?
Our problem at the moment is how to supply electricity needed to run the engine. In ICE, we have a whole bunch of dangerous, highly flammable and explosive fluid sitting in the back of the car.
In a EE we have an extremely heavy chemical battery that doesn't have nearly as much energy density as liquid combustible fuel at the moment. Heavy duty solutions are either wired access to central grid or running ICE on stable best efficiency RPM to rotate generator which will supply electricity to EE. These are not great options for a personal transportation. Essentially we have a vastly superior engine technology limited by inferior energy storage. If/when energy storage issue is even partially solved, the vast superiority of engine technology will eventually take over.
Asking for it RIGHT NOW is kind of like asking for something better then a horse back in early automotive days when fuel efficiency was horrible and fuelling stations weren't yet widespread. "But my horse can be fed at the stables which are everywhere, and won't strand me in the middle of nowhere like that terrible contraption of yours". We've been there, we've done it, and we've seen where it ends. At certain point, the technology becomes good enough to displace older methods. In our case, there is an additional factor of pollution and supply chain risks effecting the fuel supply for ICE which do not exist in near the same magnitude for EE.
The problem of energy storage is not yet solved, as stated in the last paragraph of the post you quoted. Therefore, none.
Granted, with your attention span I would recommend not driving a vehicle at all. If you can't hold attention long enough before hitting reply with quote to read through the entire thing you're going to quote, you must be one hell of a risk factor to both yourself and other drivers when behind the wheel on long rides.
Would still pollute a whole lot less actually. Coal power plants, while very "dirty" by power plant standards, are exceptionally clean by automotive standards.
Indeed, how do those huge, mining transportation trucks ever power themselves. Or trains. Surely not with electric motors?
Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines. They have far better range of high torque, far higher torque, far simpler engine designs resulting in having a lot less points of failure and cheap maintenance.
The only problem they have right now is energy storage density. Everything else, electric engines demolish ICE:s on. That is why those huge mining haulers actually run on electric engines which are powered by diesel generators rather then hooking those diesels directly to the wheels.
This would demolish the company value as most if not all cross-licensing agreements with intel would get nullified by such transaction.
No, but it will mean intense scrutiny of every action they will take due to monopolist position. You want to buy a company? Present a shiltoad of paperwork that you're not leveraging monopoly. You want to make a major business decision? Present paperwork that it's not leveraging monopoly. You want to sneeze? Present paperwork. Did you paperwork show signs of leveraging? Time to break you up.
That is why microsoft saved apple. It may be a convicted monopolist, but it's still nowhere near being a full monopoly. The more of a grip you have, the less freedom you have to make business decisions. It's a very dangerous path to take.
It would be a very difficult argument to get through to the judges, as x86 largely rules desktop and laptop regardless of the "please count tablets, phones, microwave ovens and cars as computers, PRETTY PLEASE" crowd. These aren't people who will be convinced by PR as easily as the masses.
It's not just that. Intel won't let AMD die, just like MS didn't let Apple die. They can't. If they remained the sole major x86 manufacturer, anti-monopoly regulation agencies would demolish Intel and they know it. They need some minor competition to keep regulators reasonably lax.
Get E450 desktop/laptop. These are amazing for office needs. Not too slow to decode HD youtube, got built in low end radeon, has a minuscule power draw of around 18W. When in comes to low power semi-performance, AMD really leads right now. It's just not a very profitable segment.
(Typing this from E450 15" cheapo laptop while sitting in LoL queue)
Minus one for not using lmgtfy.com to save space.
Hence, "judaism-sourced religions". It's a rather funny distinction too, as judaism's dogma was in fact about "one nationality above others" while both christianity and islam accepted the "people who believe in god over others" as a dogma hence allowing for conversion. It essentially shows just how powerful of a control tool judaism was that with just a few modifications it allowed for ideological unification of entire continents.