In the US market, sure. In the World Market Samsung alone already has a lead, though. It only shows the average US citizen is a better target for Apple's nonsense.
So, by your own admission you then concede you cannot force anyone to do anything with words as I said. The fact you can push people's buttons does not take from them the capacity to decide. If they cannot refrain to commit crimes because they heard something unpleasant only means they are not adequate to live in society and should be locked in a cage. Last but not least, you can disagree as much as you wish, but that does not make you right..
By your moral codes you may be right, but because each person has its own moral code there is something called the law. And by law, and by my moral code no matter what I say I won't be responsible for someone deciding to inflict physical harm upon me.
You may establish causality between my acts and the acts of others, but that is not very relevant to establish blame.
Having black skin was enough motive for having someone beaten once at some places. There was a clear relation of causality. Even so I wouldn't be able to put the blame on the victim here.
Causality can be established between women using provocative clothes and rape, and that does not make the victim accountable for the rape either.
No amount of verbal or written instigation justifies murder.
Furthermore, no amount of verbal or written instigation should make you accountable for the actions of others. You can't force people to do things with words, ultimately it is their choice alone if they will do it or not and they alone should answer for the consequences.
It will never happen. They is piracy to control this and any other attempt to electronic monopoly. Amazon is not stupid. It is not wasting billions in sells in the hope of gaining an uncertain monopoly in the future which it will be unable to exploit.
Oh, I have plenty, as I pointed, it is not my fault if you are too lazy to look for them and want me to do your job for you. You, on the other hand, have none. But, by all means, keep holding to your fantasies, my good sir. I am sure they make your heart warmer.
Everywhere. You just have to take a look at the evolution of the laws over the last decades and you will understand what I am saying. Then again, maybe not...
About your ability to have any real effect in the laws of your country especially when the desired effect goes against the economical interests of big corporations.
Your first statement is truth in most cases, but usually fail when there are enough interests against you. Sentences are indeed shelled out according to laws, unless the government wants the opposite badly enough.
The second statement is an illusion. You, I and people like us have absolutely no way of influencing the process of lawmaking in our countries.
That was civilians disobeying the unfair (and in this case homicidal) laws approved by their democratically elected government (which by definition is not a Tyranny). If civilians disobeying laws is not civil disobedience for you, you have a problem. Seriously.
Your overly narrow definition comes from Rawls and is just his vision of it, his opinion. There are several discordant opinions and you will see that the narrowness of his definition is pointed even in the texts you link if you bother to read them. Just to give you an example, what some Germans did, hiding Jews from the government, in WWII is civil disobedience by any meaningful definition of the term, and none of them delivered themselves (and the hidden people) for execution just to show their cause.
That may be your opinion, but it is based solely on your aesthetic sense not on any real logic. Civil disobedience is by definition just that: disobedience. It has nothing to do with any posture regarding the consequences. If running away would be counterproductive to the cause is highly debatable and dependable on the cause and several other factors, but regardless, the act itself to refuse to comply with unjust laws as you see them is civil disobedience in itself.
If you think we need martyrs, by all means, be one yourself. Do not ask other people to be one for you.
Civil disobedience does not imply in surrendering yourself, it means fighting the system. The act of not complying with government decisions as criminal sentences or arrest warrants is civil disobedience in itself.
No patent abuses are never OK, but fair and reasonable are subjective terms. To me there is no patent that would fit in the "fair and reasonable" class. Not even a single one. To you there may be a higher threshold.
It doesn't matter though. Even if Google's abuse of patents is bad it is no different from what other big companies, as MS, Oracle, Intel, etc do. I will certainly defend a World where none of them can do it, you may rest assured, but what Apple does goes several levels beyond that. Abusing the system to try and generate monopolies is way worse than abusing the system to get a bigger slice of the profits than you would judge fair.
Winning on the short term may result in terrible loss at the long term. They are betting they can do it and get away with it indefinitely. Maybe they can, maybe they cannot, but if they come crashing and burning it will be because they chose to play by these rules.
Still the GS3 is the superior product by far, and that is what the GP said.
Sure, there is a lot of trash with Android installed, but they do not really compete with Apple products. Apple products compete for the high end market, and in this market, the Android devices that are competing have far more value for the money than the equivalent Apple's products.
Google gets nothing by banning XBoxes, simply because it does not sell video game consoles. Obviously they are not trying to ban anything, they want just a slice of the pie.
Microsoft patents troll Google for money. Google patents troll Microsoft for money. They make agreements and continue to be. That is basically a zero sum game. Obviously it helps no one but the lawyers but it does not harm the consumer.
Apple is trying to patents troll Samsung into oblivion so they don't need to compete anymore and can have a legal monopoly over smartphones and tablets, and US courts apparently are fine with monopolies and Crony Capitalism so they get away with this.
There is no dogmatic-accepted scientific theory. There are just accepted theories, theories that best fit the data collected to this point. All scientists who are worth the name know that theories are just approximations of reality and as such can and will be modified in time to correct inconsistencies and better describe what they try to model.
On the other hand, all religious doctrines are completely dogmatic, and to add insult to injury, there is no religion that isn't completely inconsistent with itself. You don't even need to look outside the doctrines to find critical incoherences.
Now regarding "young earth" creationists, there is no significant difference between them and you. You both try to force data to conform to your theories (supposedly written by your invisible God), instead of trying to conform your theories to the data. The fact that they try to do it to carbon dating and you don't does not make your approach better in any way.
You just pointed your warped opinions blatantly ignoring any argument or fact you didn't like and praising jurors that obviously didn't do their jobs and where stupid enough to openly state this, proving that Hanlon Razor is true again. If those jurors are your heroes, you are even more pitiful than the average Apple fanboy, Mr Troll, because you are praising and defending stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US market, sure. In the World Market Samsung alone already has a lead, though. It only shows the average US citizen is a better target for Apple's nonsense.
Your personal definition of the word "troll", which only you accept, is irrelevant to this discussion.
So, by your own admission you then concede you cannot force anyone to do anything with words as I said. The fact you can push people's buttons does not take from them the capacity to decide. If they cannot refrain to commit crimes because they heard something unpleasant only means they are not adequate to live in society and should be locked in a cage. Last but not least, you can disagree as much as you wish, but that does not make you right..
By your moral codes you may be right, but because each person has its own moral code there is something called the law. And by law, and by my moral code no matter what I say I won't be responsible for someone deciding to inflict physical harm upon me.
You may establish causality between my acts and the acts of others, but that is not very relevant to establish blame.
Having black skin was enough motive for having someone beaten once at some places. There was a clear relation of causality. Even so I wouldn't be able to put the blame on the victim here.
Causality can be established between women using provocative clothes and rape, and that does not make the victim accountable for the rape either.
No amount of verbal or written instigation justifies murder.
Furthermore, no amount of verbal or written instigation should make you accountable for the actions of others. You can't force people to do things with words, ultimately it is their choice alone if they will do it or not and they alone should answer for the consequences.
http://xkcd.com/488/
Any price is too high if the ebook has DRM. I would happily pay for non-DRM ebooks, though, up to something around half the price of the paperback.
It will never happen. They is piracy to control this and any other attempt to electronic monopoly. Amazon is not stupid. It is not wasting billions in sells in the hope of gaining an uncertain monopoly in the future which it will be unable to exploit.
Oh, I have plenty, as I pointed, it is not my fault if you are too lazy to look for them and want me to do your job for you. You, on the other hand, have none. But, by all means, keep holding to your fantasies, my good sir. I am sure they make your heart warmer.
Everywhere. You just have to take a look at the evolution of the laws over the last decades and you will understand what I am saying. Then again, maybe not...
About your ability to have any real effect in the laws of your country especially when the desired effect goes against the economical interests of big corporations.
Sorry, but you are delusional.
Your first statement is truth in most cases, but usually fail when there are enough interests against you. Sentences are indeed shelled out according to laws, unless the government wants the opposite badly enough.
The second statement is an illusion. You, I and people like us have absolutely no way of influencing the process of lawmaking in our countries.
That was civilians disobeying the unfair (and in this case homicidal) laws approved by their democratically elected government (which by definition is not a Tyranny). If civilians disobeying laws is not civil disobedience for you, you have a problem. Seriously.
Your overly narrow definition comes from Rawls and is just his vision of it, his opinion. There are several discordant opinions and you will see that the narrowness of his definition is pointed even in the texts you link if you bother to read them. Just to give you an example, what some Germans did, hiding Jews from the government, in WWII is civil disobedience by any meaningful definition of the term, and none of them delivered themselves (and the hidden people) for execution just to show their cause.
That may be your opinion, but it is based solely on your aesthetic sense not on any real logic. Civil disobedience is by definition just that: disobedience. It has nothing to do with any posture regarding the consequences. If running away would be counterproductive to the cause is highly debatable and dependable on the cause and several other factors, but regardless, the act itself to refuse to comply with unjust laws as you see them is civil disobedience in itself.
If you think we need martyrs, by all means, be one yourself. Do not ask other people to be one for you.
Civil disobedience does not imply in surrendering yourself, it means fighting the system. The act of not complying with government decisions as criminal sentences or arrest warrants is civil disobedience in itself.
You live in a strange World. A World where Apple "invented" anything. Apple just copies. It was always like this.
No patent abuses are never OK, but fair and reasonable are subjective terms. To me there is no patent that would fit in the "fair and reasonable" class. Not even a single one. To you there may be a higher threshold.
It doesn't matter though. Even if Google's abuse of patents is bad it is no different from what other big companies, as MS, Oracle, Intel, etc do. I will certainly defend a World where none of them can do it, you may rest assured, but what Apple does goes several levels beyond that. Abusing the system to try and generate monopolies is way worse than abusing the system to get a bigger slice of the profits than you would judge fair.
Winning on the short term may result in terrible loss at the long term. They are betting they can do it and get away with it indefinitely. Maybe they can, maybe they cannot, but if they come crashing and burning it will be because they chose to play by these rules.
Still the GS3 is the superior product by far, and that is what the GP said.
Sure, there is a lot of trash with Android installed, but they do not really compete with Apple products. Apple products compete for the high end market, and in this market, the Android devices that are competing have far more value for the money than the equivalent Apple's products.
Google gets nothing by banning XBoxes, simply because it does not sell video game consoles. Obviously they are not trying to ban anything, they want just a slice of the pie.
Microsoft patents troll Google for money. Google patents troll Microsoft for money. They make agreements and continue to be. That is basically a zero sum game. Obviously it helps no one but the lawyers but it does not harm the consumer.
Apple is trying to patents troll Samsung into oblivion so they don't need to compete anymore and can have a legal monopoly over smartphones and tablets, and US courts apparently are fine with monopolies and Crony Capitalism so they get away with this.
That is exactly the point. Apparently you only have to follow the law if you don't have the power to ignore it, as governments in general often do.
There is no dogmatic-accepted scientific theory. There are just accepted theories, theories that best fit the data collected to this point. All scientists who are worth the name know that theories are just approximations of reality and as such can and will be modified in time to correct inconsistencies and better describe what they try to model.
On the other hand, all religious doctrines are completely dogmatic, and to add insult to injury, there is no religion that isn't completely inconsistent with itself. You don't even need to look outside the doctrines to find critical incoherences.
Now regarding "young earth" creationists, there is no significant difference between them and you. You both try to force data to conform to your theories (supposedly written by your invisible God), instead of trying to conform your theories to the data. The fact that they try to do it to carbon dating and you don't does not make your approach better in any way.
You just pointed your warped opinions blatantly ignoring any argument or fact you didn't like and praising jurors that obviously didn't do their jobs and where stupid enough to openly state this, proving that Hanlon Razor is true again. If those jurors are your heroes, you are even more pitiful than the average Apple fanboy, Mr Troll, because you are praising and defending stupidity.