You get two DTS calls. That's it. After that, it's incredibly expensive. I don't call that "help".
What kind of blatant entitlement is this? Seriously!? If you go to a tailor you never expect to help you get your seems fixed for free, especially not twice before paying. Never, ever, would they accept any argument along the line "but it would make you look good if I wore a my suit sewn by you".
If you go to a a doctor to help diagnose your medical problem the doctor would just laugh at you and point to the door if you insist he should not be reimbursed for his time and knowledge and service to you because it might somehow be in his interest to have you healthy or somehow able to "spread the word around about what great guy he is".
If you take your computer to Geek Squad you pay for their service. You never get two technical support incidents fixed by for free by them.
It is the same thing, there is nothing inherent in a service that warrants it being provided for free. Only those who think that everyones time and knowledge is worth free (nothing) thinks that way.
Apple is quite reasonable in giving you a limited number of free technical support calls for something that is not a warranty (or similar issue) and then asking for about the price of a haircut (under $50 per incident) for something that could be looked at for days worth of billable hours if it was pure consulting.
Apple should not fix someone else's broken code, they have extensive documentation on their API:s, they have developer forums that are frequented by their own engineers. They promise will help you twice per year, for free, in addition they may help you an unlimited number of times on the developer forums. In addition they offer cheap DTS at a cheap fixed rate.
Oh yeah? I have an app that doesn't work anymore under Lion. How do I get them to upgrade it? Sure, they'll help Adobe upgrade their apps, but the rest of us don't get anything.
"Apple Developer Program members may contact Developer Technical Support for code-level technical assistance."
At developer.apple.com/contact (under the Mac section) you can request an Apple engineer to look at your code and respond to your request. They have the same deal for every iOS developer as well.
Facebook has its own ad network essentially bypassing Google's potential revenue, that is the reason I suspect it might indeed be a threat to Google, however, it remains to see if Facebook is going to go into search and related areas. Facebook could conceivably do an Apple/Siri-like move since Siri only uses Google as a last resort while going directly to the sources (Yelp, Wolfram Alpha, Yahoo Finance & Weather). Siri could conceivably easily be extended with additional data sources and so could a Facebook search interface also.
It is supposed to augment/replace air conditioners and regulate drinking water and irrigation supplies, not cool down the exterior and interior of an entire city.
They do not need a nuclear reactor to dump energy into the environment;), they need a simple and cheap way to cool parts of the city. A nuclear power plant, while relatively predictable is neither cheap nor simple. Nor will reactors dumping 2.3GW thermal per hour (as per your numbers) into the vicinity of the city help cool it down. Though a nuclear power plant could be used to replace the three old and toxic coal power plants currently powering the city, however, the country is poor and perhaps lacks the necessary skilled labor to keep the infrastructure and power plant running.
I suppose we could compare this to Ice Hotel in northern Sweden where they take 10 000 cubic meters of ice from the Torne River, since the flow of the river is about 370 cubic meters per second this means a disruption of slightly less than 30 seconds that melts back over the course of a few months. Tuul River that will be used for this seems like a river of comparable size (longer, but likely a slower flow). If the Ulan Bator experiment will produce use ten times as much ice (100 000 cubic meters) and it will take about 120 days for it to melt back into the river it would be at a rate of: about 833 cubic meters per day, or about 34 cubic meters per hour,> or less than 600 liters per second.
Now, for that to be a significant difference compared to normal flow during these months average flow must be if we say that anything less than 5% change is no big deal (I do not know what changes the river can actually deal with before botched migrations or flooding becomes a risk) for the river 12 cubic meters per second.
If the river is flowing at 30 cubic meters per second and 5% change as a threshold then Ulan Bator could conceivably take 300 000 cubic meters of ice, let it melt during 150 days (april, may, june, july, august) and still not make a difference in the normal water flow.
Sandboxing, Apple has argued, limits the resources applications can access and makes it more difficult for malware to compromise systems.
I think everyone argues that sandboxing limits the resources applications can access and makes it more difficult for malware to compromise systems. Well, at least for a fully functional application sandbox.
Apple includes the Magic trackpad (in addition to the keyboard) which is probably the best input device for Mac OS X there is, a 13×11cm multitouch trackpad made from the same material as the trackpad on their laptops, it is well worth its $69 price tag if bought separately.
We have laws against negligence where if some person fails to take proper precaution to protect the safety of someone else, the negligent person can be found guilty.
This only holds when the person who didn't take proper precautions had some duty to protect that other person's safety.
That is exactly what I mean, should we be responsible for the actions of our brains and arms when, say, building a house so that it is not a firetrap even if the builder will never meet the one who may be triggering the fire with a ill thought that added a bit too much pine wood that triggered sparks and a chain of events?
Should we be responsible for what our brains and mouth does when we state something? Even if the speaker will never meet the person
Then, we have the philosophical question: Can speech influence behaviour?
Of course it can; it's not much of a question. Ask any Internet troll.
That was a rhetorical question by the way. It is not my intent to waste your time and energy to answer those.
If we can agree that one person's speech can influence another person's actions, can we then come to the conclusion that one person's speech can put a third person (or her/his possessions) in danger? If we think that the answer to that question is yes then the natural question to follow up is: Are we allowed to put another person (or her/his possessions) in danger?
Your logic doesn't hold together. The intermediary matters. If I point a gun at a person's head and pull the trigger, I've "influenced" the bullet to kill the person, but I'm the one responsible for the death; neither the gun nor the bullet is capable of judgement and cannot be held to blame.
On the other hand, if I merely say that the world would be a better place with that person dead, I may influence some listener into killing that person. My speech has indirectly caused someone else's death. But this time I'm not culpable; the other person is not an automaton, they have the capacity to make their own decisions, and I am not responsible for them even if they got their bad ideas from me.
Of course there are grey areas; perhaps I have some authority over the second person and perhaps I'm in the habit of giving orders by making offhand remarks like that. In that case I might be culpable, both morally and legally. This decision says the prosecutors have to demonstrate that this is the case.
Yes, it does in fact hold together, it might not seem like so if one ignores how the human cognitive system works, while we would like to have black and white laws and rules that governs our behaviour we can not because our perception and actions in this world are subjective and never black and white.
Our actions do indeed influence others, even when we have no power over them. This is why commercials work. This is why branding works. This is how fanboyism is formed. This is how religion is based, it is all just speech that influences others.
Here is the fact that is the hardest to account for in this discussion, you have problem with it and so do I: It is never a single discrete event that triggers something, it is always a series of events, and if people (as have been shown again, again, and again) does not take responsibility for their actions (like speech, just look how much lies are spewed at all levels of society) then is it not necessary to do something that forces responsibility? I do not claim to know the best response, but I do feel like something has to be done.
If someone chooses to be influenced by it, yes. What they do is up to them. If someone is so easily influenced that they do whatever someone else tells them to, then I think that's just unfortunate (for them and anyone they happen to hurt). But I think it's ultimately their fault.
Problem is, most (as in almost everyone) can not choose to be influenced or not be influenced. There are so many mental processes that we are not in control of that governs our perception and actions that we just can not. For example: It is easier to not be influenced to text than images. Ignoring our mental processes that we can not control there would be no difference, but we have to take subconscious cognitive processes to be able to understand that we are not fully in control of what we are influenced by and what we can ignore.
Also, not everyone is a rational person, take for example the assassination attempt in Arizona, it likely happened because there are indeed easily influenced people in this world. Even if that is only 0.001% of the population, that would make it over 3100 persons in a country like USA. Would it be an acceptable risk to suffer to know that there are 3000 persons in this country that would be easily influenced by a public speech suggesting that someone should be killed?
Once again, this is not a perfect representation of my own beliefs in regards to free speech, I just happen to think that it is not always as clear cut and black and white as some people (you are not included in that group) make it out to be. I can for example guess that a sizeable number of Slashdot users were/is bullied in school or know someone who was/is and it is not a pleasant thing to hear derogatory statements, malicious gossip and other verbal abuse almost every day during your youth. No amount of "this is free speech, they should be allowed to say whatever they want" is going to make the victim feel any better.
My point is that this is precisely the kind of speech that your constitution shouldn't protect.
Why?
I'll take a guess, the following is not reflecting my personal philosophical or political point of view on the subject though These are however my thoughts on the matter:
We have laws against negligence where if some person fails to take proper precaution to protect the safety of someone else, the negligent person can be found guilty.
We have laws that require us to follow certain security standards (e.g. radiation, pollution, tire pressure, how bridges should be built, fire protection) that protects someone against the person responsible for the action. The responsible person can be found guilty if these security standards have not been followed.
Then, we have the philosophical question: Can speech influence behaviour?
Most persons, especially those in politics and media would say yes, definitely. If we can agree that one person's speech can influence another person's actions, can we then come to the conclusion that one person's speech can put a third person (or her/his possessions) in danger? If we think that the answer to that question is yes then the natural question to follow up is: Are we allowed to put another person (or her/his possessions) in danger?
No, I won't spare you that, because Europeans did in fact war among themselves, they had much more nations/tribes and fractions than today. Europe was also consisting of tribes long after AD. There is also a reason they are called the First Nations in Canada.
Europe's germanic people had the tribes of the Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Lombards, and Goths. The Visigoths and the Basques lived in what is now Spain. Heck, Germany was not much more than a collection of city states until the second half of the 19th century where foe turned to into trading friends, and back again to foe. There is a reason Napoleon just steamrolled right over the place in the battle against the Third Coalition.
120 years before Columbus, the countries of what is today Scandinavia was little more than a collection of loosely held together nations with multiple kings sometimes warring, sometimes not. This did not stop until the 17th century.
Wales was for a long time after the 13th century nothing more than a number of smaller "states", all ruling and quibbling among themselves, the only real difference with Indians was that they were not nomadic.
Greece was also consisting of some fifty minor city-states sometimes warring, sometimes not.
Your insistence that that Europe was not like I have proven above this is simply not true. You should read up on your history and stop spreading social nationalistic lies.
I'm living in Titska Watitch Territory, and lived here most of my life. Almost all of the Europeans have left Europe for a reason. They came for the land and an improved quality of life. It doesn't give them the right to come illegally.
It also rode the coattails of the incredibly popular click-wheel iPod brand. What brand's coattails should Android-powered music players have ridden?
Google's brand? Amazon's brand? LG's brand? Sprint's brand? Samsung's brand?
Though I agree that most of the above brands have no single defining product other than Amazon (shopping) and Google (more or less the internet).
Apple essentially merged FCP and FCE. While leaving the extremely advanced users behind with EOL software. Some numbers say that Apple sold about 2 million copies of the last version of Final Cut Pro, if we assume that Final Cut Express sold less, at perhaps one million copies (this is a bit low, part of me thinks there are actually more FCE users). This is the market for the new Final Cut [any version] that Apple is targeting. However, was their mistake in alienating the top 50 000 - 100 000 or so users in the initial release enough to kill their whole market? No, most users are not affected by the high end limitations in the initial release.
Apple just announced that they were going to merge the Server and Consumer versions (scroll almost all the way down) of Mac OS X Lion, why would they split them apart into two different versions again?
It is disingenuous to bunch together such a large variety of nations and cultures and claiming such a false thing. It works only to spread lies.
So you are asserting that the courts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are wholly dissimilar. If you think they are similar, then you are agreeing with the person you are arguing with. If you don't think they are similar, then I'd like to hear why you think they are not similar, as they appear to have a number of similarities.
They are dissimilar enough to warrant being treated like independent units of independent nations.
No. GP was wrong and you know it, GP just let her/his racism shine through, acting all prejudiced and high and mighty.
Nationalism isn't racism. Prejudice doesn't mean wrong. And you are purposefully playing both smart and dumb at the same time to back your point. You knew what he meant, and you purposefully chose to not use the traditional definition in your retort.
Neither nationalism nor racism nor prejudice has a place in a rational discussion. Which is why I proved GP wrong, why do you keep defending nationalism and prejudice as good things?
If you were actually right, why did you have to use the widest possible definition in order to make your point?
Because you forced the widening of the definition which:
Originally it was: USA compared to Middle East
You widened it to: North America compared to Middle East
I accepted that and compared North America to The Middle East.
Why did you widen the definition if you wanted it kept tight?
Though you did inform me of something. I hadn't actually thought that the African country of Morocco, that's actually in the west, not the east at all, middle, near, far or otherwise, would be considered middle eastern.
Well, if you are unsure, this is the countries that are part of the geographical (note the lack of "political" or "cultural") region "The Middle East":
Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Khazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, Uzbekistan, Western Sahara, Yemen.
It is The Middle East, you may think of some nations in the above list as being in the west, but that does not change the fact that they are in the geographical region called "The Middle East".
I guess all the bigots like you just lumped "arabic and those we confuse with arabic" together like some massive "other" category.
Wait, I am a bigot for pointing out that people have a wide variety of cultural, political, historical and national differences? How come I am a bigot for thinking this might be a nice thing? I happen to enjoy interacting with people from different cultures, close or far, how does that make me a bigot?
If you didn't abandon the normal definition for the all inclusive one, you could have still used Israel and Turkey as the "exceptions."
The normal definition is the inclusive one, why are you making it difficult for yourself?
But then, they'd have been the only ones. Ever hear "the exception that proves the rule?"
Yes, it is said jokingly be people who does not want to discuss something. It is never used in serious discourse.
Where I grew up, it indicated that if you had to expend such great effort to find an exception, you actually proved the opposite because a few outliers can be ignored for such generalizations without invalidating it.
So me finding that every nation is a different nation somehow proves that I am wrong in claiming that nation A is different from nation B?
So there is no court that applies to people in North America, but there are courts that apply to those in the US? You are making an incorrect and irrelevant distinction. There are courts covering 100% of the world, no matter how you choose to indicate that location (whether by geographical division or political division). And cultural similarities will often have geographical groupings that overlap political, or the other way around.
My point is that they are vastly different, both from a cultural, political and judicial point of view. The courts in Cuba, Haiti, USA, Canada and Panama for example are very different, now compare this to the courts of Jordan, Kazakhstan, Israel, Morocco, Turkey and Kuwait and you have even greater variation on how the courts works. It is disingenuous to bunch together such a large variety of nations and cultures and claiming such a false thing. It works only to spread lies.
But then, I think you knew all that, you knew he was right, but you, for whatever reason, don't like such inferences. So you lied in your statements regarding geographical regions not having courts because you know all inhabited regions do have courts. And you lied in order to prove some point that's false because you find it personally offensive, despite (or more likely, because) it's true.
No. GP was wrong and you know it, GP just let her/his racism shine through, acting all prejudiced and high and mighty. You should not help GP to do things, it lends validity to xenophobia, the very thing that is cause to many problems in many regions around the world. Comparing one nation to almost forty is impossible, and you know it. Even the 23 nations that North America has to the forty of the middle east is stretching it.
Can you sum up the checks and balances, the courts, the judicial system, workings of the dues process of even 15 of the 23 nations? I did not think so. Now try doing that with almost 40.
Slashdot Mirror
You get two DTS calls. That's it. After that, it's incredibly expensive. I don't call that "help".
What kind of blatant entitlement is this? Seriously!? If you go to a tailor you never expect to help you get your seems fixed for free, especially not twice before paying. Never, ever, would they accept any argument along the line "but it would make you look good if I wore a my suit sewn by you".
If you go to a a doctor to help diagnose your medical problem the doctor would just laugh at you and point to the door if you insist he should not be reimbursed for his time and knowledge and service to you because it might somehow be in his interest to have you healthy or somehow able to "spread the word around about what great guy he is".
If you take your computer to Geek Squad you pay for their service. You never get two technical support incidents fixed by for free by them.
It is the same thing, there is nothing inherent in a service that warrants it being provided for free. Only those who think that everyones time and knowledge is worth free (nothing) thinks that way.
Apple is quite reasonable in giving you a limited number of free technical support calls for something that is not a warranty (or similar issue) and then asking for about the price of a haircut (under $50 per incident) for something that could be looked at for days worth of billable hours if it was pure consulting.
Apple should not fix someone else's broken code, they have extensive documentation on their API:s, they have developer forums that are frequented by their own engineers. They promise will help you twice per year, for free, in addition they may help you an unlimited number of times on the developer forums. In addition they offer cheap DTS at a cheap fixed rate.
Apple will help companies upgrade apps.
Oh yeah? I have an app that doesn't work anymore under Lion. How do I get them to upgrade it? Sure, they'll help Adobe upgrade their apps, but the rest of us don't get anything.
"Apple Developer Program members may contact Developer Technical Support for code-level technical assistance." At developer.apple.com/contact (under the Mac section) you can request an Apple engineer to look at your code and respond to your request. They have the same deal for every iOS developer as well.
One of them is dead as slashdotters are well aware.
I understand you some automated system capable of removing dust from a flat surface. :)
(another alternative)
Facebook has its own ad network essentially bypassing Google's potential revenue, that is the reason I suspect it might indeed be a threat to Google, however, it remains to see if Facebook is going to go into search and related areas. Facebook could conceivably do an Apple/Siri-like move since Siri only uses Google as a last resort while going directly to the sources (Yelp, Wolfram Alpha, Yahoo Finance & Weather). Siri could conceivably easily be extended with additional data sources and so could a Facebook search interface also.
China is trying, but then there is this free speech movement that tries to poke holes in that great firewall all the time.
It is supposed to augment/replace air conditioners and regulate drinking water and irrigation supplies, not cool down the exterior and interior of an entire city.
They do not need a nuclear reactor to dump energy into the environment ;), they need a simple and cheap way to cool parts of the city. A nuclear power plant, while relatively predictable is neither cheap nor simple. Nor will reactors dumping 2.3GW thermal per hour (as per your numbers) into the vicinity of the city help cool it down. Though a nuclear power plant could be used to replace the three old and toxic coal power plants currently powering the city, however, the country is poor and perhaps lacks the necessary skilled labor to keep the infrastructure and power plant running.
I suppose we could compare this to Ice Hotel in northern Sweden where they take 10 000 cubic meters of ice from the Torne River, since the flow of the river is about 370 cubic meters per second this means a disruption of slightly less than 30 seconds that melts back over the course of a few months. Tuul River that will be used for this seems like a river of comparable size (longer, but likely a slower flow). If the Ulan Bator experiment will produce use ten times as much ice (100 000 cubic meters) and it will take about 120 days for it to melt back into the river it would be at a rate of: about 833 cubic meters per day, or about 34 cubic meters per hour,> or less than 600 liters per second.
Now, for that to be a significant difference compared to normal flow during these months average flow must be if we say that anything less than 5% change is no big deal (I do not know what changes the river can actually deal with before botched migrations or flooding becomes a risk) for the river 12 cubic meters per second.
If the river is flowing at 30 cubic meters per second and 5% change as a threshold then Ulan Bator could conceivably take 300 000 cubic meters of ice, let it melt during 150 days (april, may, june, july, august) and still not make a difference in the normal water flow.
Here you go: Greenpeace annual reports.
I think everyone argues that sandboxing limits the resources applications can access and makes it more difficult for malware to compromise systems. Well, at least for a fully functional application sandbox.
Apple includes the Magic trackpad (in addition to the keyboard) which is probably the best input device for Mac OS X there is, a 13×11cm multitouch trackpad made from the same material as the trackpad on their laptops, it is well worth its $69 price tag if bought separately.
We have laws against negligence where if some person fails to take proper precaution to protect the safety of someone else, the negligent person can be found guilty.
This only holds when the person who didn't take proper precautions had some duty to protect that other person's safety.
That is exactly what I mean, should we be responsible for the actions of our brains and arms when, say, building a house so that it is not a firetrap even if the builder will never meet the one who may be triggering the fire with a ill thought that added a bit too much pine wood that triggered sparks and a chain of events? Should we be responsible for what our brains and mouth does when we state something? Even if the speaker will never meet the person
Then, we have the philosophical question: Can speech influence behaviour?
Of course it can; it's not much of a question. Ask any Internet troll.
That was a rhetorical question by the way. It is not my intent to waste your time and energy to answer those.
If we can agree that one person's speech can influence another person's actions, can we then come to the conclusion that one person's speech can put a third person (or her/his possessions) in danger? If we think that the answer to that question is yes then the natural question to follow up is: Are we allowed to put another person (or her/his possessions) in danger?
Your logic doesn't hold together. The intermediary matters. If I point a gun at a person's head and pull the trigger, I've "influenced" the bullet to kill the person, but I'm the one responsible for the death; neither the gun nor the bullet is capable of judgement and cannot be held to blame.
On the other hand, if I merely say that the world would be a better place with that person dead, I may influence some listener into killing that person. My speech has indirectly caused someone else's death. But this time I'm not culpable; the other person is not an automaton, they have the capacity to make their own decisions, and I am not responsible for them even if they got their bad ideas from me.
Of course there are grey areas; perhaps I have some authority over the second person and perhaps I'm in the habit of giving orders by making offhand remarks like that. In that case I might be culpable, both morally and legally. This decision says the prosecutors have to demonstrate that this is the case.
Yes, it does in fact hold together, it might not seem like so if one ignores how the human cognitive system works, while we would like to have black and white laws and rules that governs our behaviour we can not because our perception and actions in this world are subjective and never black and white.
Our actions do indeed influence others, even when we have no power over them. This is why commercials work. This is why branding works. This is how fanboyism is formed. This is how religion is based, it is all just speech that influences others.
Here is the fact that is the hardest to account for in this discussion, you have problem with it and so do I: It is never a single discrete event that triggers something, it is always a series of events, and if people (as have been shown again, again, and again) does not take responsibility for their actions (like speech, just look how much lies are spewed at all levels of society) then is it not necessary to do something that forces responsibility? I do not claim to know the best response, but I do feel like something has to be done.
Can speech influence behaviour?
If someone chooses to be influenced by it, yes. What they do is up to them. If someone is so easily influenced that they do whatever someone else tells them to, then I think that's just unfortunate (for them and anyone they happen to hurt). But I think it's ultimately their fault.
Problem is, most (as in almost everyone) can not choose to be influenced or not be influenced. There are so many mental processes that we are not in control of that governs our perception and actions that we just can not. For example: It is easier to not be influenced to text than images. Ignoring our mental processes that we can not control there would be no difference, but we have to take subconscious cognitive processes to be able to understand that we are not fully in control of what we are influenced by and what we can ignore.
Also, not everyone is a rational person, take for example the assassination attempt in Arizona, it likely happened because there are indeed easily influenced people in this world. Even if that is only 0.001% of the population, that would make it over 3100 persons in a country like USA. Would it be an acceptable risk to suffer to know that there are 3000 persons in this country that would be easily influenced by a public speech suggesting that someone should be killed?
Once again, this is not a perfect representation of my own beliefs in regards to free speech, I just happen to think that it is not always as clear cut and black and white as some people (you are not included in that group) make it out to be. I can for example guess that a sizeable number of Slashdot users were/is bullied in school or know someone who was/is and it is not a pleasant thing to hear derogatory statements, malicious gossip and other verbal abuse almost every day during your youth. No amount of "this is free speech, they should be allowed to say whatever they want" is going to make the victim feel any better.
My point is that this is precisely the kind of speech that your constitution shouldn't protect.
Why?
I'll take a guess, the following is not reflecting my personal philosophical or political point of view on the subject though These are however my thoughts on the matter:
We have laws against negligence where if some person fails to take proper precaution to protect the safety of someone else, the negligent person can be found guilty.
We have laws that require us to follow certain security standards (e.g. radiation, pollution, tire pressure, how bridges should be built, fire protection) that protects someone against the person responsible for the action. The responsible person can be found guilty if these security standards have not been followed.
Then, we have the philosophical question: Can speech influence behaviour?
Most persons, especially those in politics and media would say yes, definitely. If we can agree that one person's speech can influence another person's actions, can we then come to the conclusion that one person's speech can put a third person (or her/his possessions) in danger? If we think that the answer to that question is yes then the natural question to follow up is: Are we allowed to put another person (or her/his possessions) in danger?
No, I won't spare you that, because Europeans did in fact war among themselves, they had much more nations/tribes and fractions than today. Europe was also consisting of tribes long after AD. There is also a reason they are called the First Nations in Canada.
Europe's germanic people had the tribes of the Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Lombards, and Goths. The Visigoths and the Basques lived in what is now Spain. Heck, Germany was not much more than a collection of city states until the second half of the 19th century where foe turned to into trading friends, and back again to foe. There is a reason Napoleon just steamrolled right over the place in the battle against the Third Coalition.
120 years before Columbus, the countries of what is today Scandinavia was little more than a collection of loosely held together nations with multiple kings sometimes warring, sometimes not. This did not stop until the 17th century.
Wales was for a long time after the 13th century nothing more than a number of smaller "states", all ruling and quibbling among themselves, the only real difference with Indians was that they were not nomadic.
Greece was also consisting of some fifty minor city-states sometimes warring, sometimes not.
Your insistence that that Europe was not like I have proven above this is simply not true. You should read up on your history and stop spreading social nationalistic lies.
I'm living in Titska Watitch Territory, and lived here most of my life. Almost all of the Europeans have left Europe for a reason. They came for the land and an improved quality of life. It doesn't give them the right to come illegally.
It also rode the coattails of the incredibly popular click-wheel iPod brand. What brand's coattails should Android-powered music players have ridden?
Google's brand? Amazon's brand? LG's brand? Sprint's brand? Samsung's brand? Though I agree that most of the above brands have no single defining product other than Amazon (shopping) and Google (more or less the internet).
Apple essentially merged FCP and FCE. While leaving the extremely advanced users behind with EOL software. Some numbers say that Apple sold about 2 million copies of the last version of Final Cut Pro, if we assume that Final Cut Express sold less, at perhaps one million copies (this is a bit low, part of me thinks there are actually more FCE users). This is the market for the new Final Cut [any version] that Apple is targeting. However, was their mistake in alienating the top 50 000 - 100 000 or so users in the initial release enough to kill their whole market? No, most users are not affected by the high end limitations in the initial release.
Most importantly though is that almost all of the complaints have already been acknowledged by Apple and the product manager has promised that they will return to the suite in coming updates.
Then they should use Apple's iCloud, it's all white and glossy, like the poles.
Apple just announced that they were going to merge the Server and Consumer versions (scroll almost all the way down) of Mac OS X Lion, why would they split them apart into two different versions again?
One reason is that the person making the complaint is Christopher Soghoian, a heavyweight when it comes to computer security.
It is disingenuous to bunch together such a large variety of nations and cultures and claiming such a false thing. It works only to spread lies.
So you are asserting that the courts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are wholly dissimilar. If you think they are similar, then you are agreeing with the person you are arguing with. If you don't think they are similar, then I'd like to hear why you think they are not similar, as they appear to have a number of similarities.
They are dissimilar enough to warrant being treated like independent units of independent nations.
No. GP was wrong and you know it, GP just let her/his racism shine through, acting all prejudiced and high and mighty.
Nationalism isn't racism. Prejudice doesn't mean wrong. And you are purposefully playing both smart and dumb at the same time to back your point. You knew what he meant, and you purposefully chose to not use the traditional definition in your retort.
Neither nationalism nor racism nor prejudice has a place in a rational discussion. Which is why I proved GP wrong, why do you keep defending nationalism and prejudice as good things?
If you were actually right, why did you have to use the widest possible definition in order to make your point?
Because you forced the widening of the definition which: Originally it was: USA compared to Middle East You widened it to: North America compared to Middle East I accepted that and compared North America to The Middle East. Why did you widen the definition if you wanted it kept tight?
Though you did inform me of something. I hadn't actually thought that the African country of Morocco, that's actually in the west, not the east at all, middle, near, far or otherwise, would be considered middle eastern.
Well, if you are unsure, this is the countries that are part of the geographical (note the lack of "political" or "cultural") region "The Middle East": Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Khazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, Uzbekistan, Western Sahara, Yemen. It is The Middle East, you may think of some nations in the above list as being in the west, but that does not change the fact that they are in the geographical region called "The Middle East".
I guess all the bigots like you just lumped "arabic and those we confuse with arabic" together like some massive "other" category.
Wait, I am a bigot for pointing out that people have a wide variety of cultural, political, historical and national differences? How come I am a bigot for thinking this might be a nice thing? I happen to enjoy interacting with people from different cultures, close or far, how does that make me a bigot?
If you didn't abandon the normal definition for the all inclusive one, you could have still used Israel and Turkey as the "exceptions."
The normal definition is the inclusive one, why are you making it difficult for yourself?
But then, they'd have been the only ones. Ever hear "the exception that proves the rule?"
Yes, it is said jokingly be people who does not want to discuss something. It is never used in serious discourse.
Where I grew up, it indicated that if you had to expend such great effort to find an exception, you actually proved the opposite because a few outliers can be ignored for such generalizations without invalidating it.
So me finding that every nation is a different nation somehow proves that I am wrong in claiming that nation A is different from nation B?
And that's
So there is no court that applies to people in North America, but there are courts that apply to those in the US? You are making an incorrect and irrelevant distinction. There are courts covering 100% of the world, no matter how you choose to indicate that location (whether by geographical division or political division). And cultural similarities will often have geographical groupings that overlap political, or the other way around.
My point is that they are vastly different, both from a cultural, political and judicial point of view. The courts in Cuba, Haiti, USA, Canada and Panama for example are very different, now compare this to the courts of Jordan, Kazakhstan, Israel, Morocco, Turkey and Kuwait and you have even greater variation on how the courts works. It is disingenuous to bunch together such a large variety of nations and cultures and claiming such a false thing. It works only to spread lies.
But then, I think you knew all that, you knew he was right, but you, for whatever reason, don't like such inferences. So you lied in your statements regarding geographical regions not having courts because you know all inhabited regions do have courts. And you lied in order to prove some point that's false because you find it personally offensive, despite (or more likely, because) it's true.
No. GP was wrong and you know it, GP just let her/his racism shine through, acting all prejudiced and high and mighty. You should not help GP to do things, it lends validity to xenophobia, the very thing that is cause to many problems in many regions around the world. Comparing one nation to almost forty is impossible, and you know it. Even the 23 nations that North America has to the forty of the middle east is stretching it. Can you sum up the checks and balances, the courts, the judicial system, workings of the dues process of even 15 of the 23 nations? I did not think so. Now try doing that with almost 40.
The USA has courts, due process, and checks and balances. The middle east, not so much.
USA is a nation, the middle east is a geographical region. Geographical regions does not have courts and such. Nations do.