Maybe Samsung produced homeopathic quantities of iPhone X displays they are selling to Apple for a high price. Maybe even Samsung think the difference is not worth the extra price, so that display was not included in their Note 8. It's not as if it was day and night between the two. Samsung had the best display for years, beating Apple for all the recent years. Now, Apple may have a slight edge from November 2017 onwards, but I expect Samsung to take back the crown in April with their next flagship. Maybe Apple wanted to have the crown for a few months as a condition to switch to Samsung displays.
There are many different explanations, most of which do not include any engineering on Apple's side.
Apple won on that case against Samsung in one (albeit rich and populous) country out of almost 200. Does it mean Samsung is right in the others? Why isn't Apple suing everywhere?
The real question is why is the USA patent system so broken that a case like this can be won by Apple.
But you are wrong, I never authorized them. They never asked me if I wanted the package to be dropped at my front door when I made the order. I doubt it's in their terms and conditions but even if it is, I doubt it stands in court.
Make sense, however it's more expensive (for Amazon, since I get free shipping) to require the signature so often they don't. Also I never had a stolen package.
What about the focus on education? Defense? Health? Transportation? Every single cent spent by the government not spent on local pollution problems.... is not spent on local pollution problems.
So what's your point again? Because what you just said don't make any sense. What's so special about climate change?
It's your local (country / state / city / whatever) government responsibility to give incentives to address local pollution issues.
Also just because they are addressing other issues (poverty, defense, whatever) doesn't stop them from fighting local pollution either. But of course, choices have to be made. Money spent on defense doesn't help solving any pollution problem (either local or global).
How hard is it to make that claim in NZ? We have similar law where I live, however that often means going to court to get your phone repaired. Those who do almost always win however.
From what I understand, Spain's constitution was adopted by a majority referendum. Even if 100% of Catalonia voted against the constitution, it would still have passed. And if Spain as a whole voted against, that would have meant keeping the previous Franco-era dictatorial laws, which probably also forbade Catalonia's independence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Any constitution article that forbids secession or make it unrealistic is worthless. The self-determination right of the Catalan people goes above any of such constitutional clause.
The EU doesn't want the UK to leave. They still accept the democratic decision. Unlike Spain. I agree that ideally there should be a framework (and a realistic one). Spain's so-called framework would be to hold a Spain-wide referendum on the issue. It's a complete joke, just like it would have been a joke to even suggest the Brexit referendum should have been EU-wide. When a framework for independence is lacking, the organization of a referendum is the preferable option and this is exactly what Catalonia did. What else could have they done any differently to please Madrid?
And you don't see any difference between what 'another country' does vs what your OWN country, where you are citizen, does?
On independence of a region where you don't live? No. Otherwise, a country, say, an European colonial power could keep a colony forever even if 100% of the citizen of the colony want independence? Do you even realize the consequences of what you are saying?
Why should they? Canada is not a direct democracy and never has pretended to be one
Because it's dumb to participate in a referendum, like Canada did for the "No" side in 1995 and 1980, and not even recognize the result. At least Madrid was clear on this one, they said outright they wouldn'T recognize the result. Canada was voluntarily unclear, so that it can't be called anti-democratic, while at the same time send the message to Quebec that its independence plans could fail (like Catalonia today) even in case of a Yes victory.
You don't play games with self-determinations and democratic rights. There is no place for such cowardice.
What about how the rest of Canada feels about it? They may own property in quebec, have businesses and investments in quebec, or have family in quebec - and they are all seriously impacted as well.
So what? They may have family and property in another country. They are free to sell. Are you saying Canada should be forced to join back the UK? Ever thought of people with family in both countries? At least Quebec held a referendum to leave Canada. Canada left the UK without even consulting its population!
Unilateral secession is complicated.
I agree. That's why there is a simple solution. Bilateral secession. It doesn't mean the other part of the country need to approve by a referendum too. That would be as stupid as requiring both members to agree to a divorce. What bilateral secession means would be for Spain to acknowledge Catalonia's will to be independent and negotiate the transition. You know, just like the EU is doing with the UK right now. Catalonia never asked for unilateral secession. Spain did.
My friends used to jokingly suggest we hold a referendum in the rest of Canada to draw a border around the most separatist parts of quebec out of the country, and just kick those regions out.
Your friends are probably not aware of the Montevideo convention on statehood. You don't gerrymander with states. And even though a state doesn't have to be contiguous (USA is doing fine with Alaska), your imaginary boundary probably make no sense. But your friends aren't the first ones to get that idea. Apartheid South Africa did.
The only difference is that the Canadian government chose not to send the police to block the voting process. Canada, unlike the UK, never said they'd recognize a "Yes" victory. They also spent way more money than what was allowed under the Quebec referendum law.
So in order of democratic score, we have UK > Canada > Spain.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Samsung produced homeopathic quantities of iPhone X displays they are selling to Apple for a high price.
Maybe even Samsung think the difference is not worth the extra price, so that display was not included in their Note 8. It's not as if it was day and night between the two.
Samsung had the best display for years, beating Apple for all the recent years. Now, Apple may have a slight edge from November 2017 onwards, but I expect Samsung to take back the crown in April with their next flagship. Maybe Apple wanted to have the crown for a few months as a condition to switch to Samsung displays.
There are many different explanations, most of which do not include any engineering on Apple's side.
The best LCD. OLED is not LCD. The Galaxy S7 was "The Best Performing Smartphone Display that we have ever tested."
http://www.displaymate.com/Gal...
Until they tested the exploding Note 7. Despite its battery flaws, its display was even better:
http://www.displaymate.com/Gal...
And more recently, the Galaxy S8 beat that score:
http://www.displaymate.com/Gal...
If it's that easy then why doesn't a Samsung phone have the the best smartphone display according to DisplayMate?
They have. For years, Samsung had the best display on its own phone. It just didn't made Slashdot headlines because it wasn't Apple.
Apple won on that case against Samsung in one (albeit rich and populous) country out of almost 200. Does it mean Samsung is right in the others? Why isn't Apple suing everywhere?
The real question is why is the USA patent system so broken that a case like this can be won by Apple.
You mean having a table for 20 or so countries with 8-bit tax rate for each of them is a massive burden?
But you are wrong, I never authorized them. They never asked me if I wanted the package to be dropped at my front door when I made the order. I doubt it's in their terms and conditions but even if it is, I doubt it stands in court.
Make sense, however it's more expensive (for Amazon, since I get free shipping) to require the signature so often they don't. Also I never had a stolen package.
No, that's my point. I didn't. They still leave the package there. I am not going to complain as there is no way I can be held responsible for that.
And if the package is lost, I am not responsible for it. Best of both worlds and no need for the Amazon key.
We are also forced to watch FBI warnings on DVDs. Not sure if they are still on Blu Rays (probably)
What about the focus on education? Defense? Health? Transportation? Every single cent spent by the government not spent on local pollution problems.... is not spent on local pollution problems.
So what's your point again? Because what you just said don't make any sense. What's so special about climate change?
Some will lose billions,some will make billions just as they did in the past.
The whole point of fighting global warming is that the world, as a whole, will lose billions more than if we act.
The cost of acting today is lower than the future cost of doing nothing.
You don't get the issue if you mix weather and climate.
It's your local (country / state / city / whatever) government responsibility to give incentives to address local pollution issues.
Also just because they are addressing other issues (poverty, defense, whatever) doesn't stop them from fighting local pollution either. But of course, choices have to be made. Money spent on defense doesn't help solving any pollution problem (either local or global).
Addressing the global warming problem doesn't stop anyone from addressing local pollution problems.
And when doing so, they lose all credibility when giving democracy lessons to the rest of the world.
If one person can't get out on its own, then it's a prison, not a marriage.
How hard is it to make that claim in NZ? We have similar law where I live, however that often means going to court to get your phone repaired. Those who do almost always win however.
From what I understand, Spain's constitution was adopted by a majority referendum. Even if 100% of Catalonia voted against the constitution, it would still have passed. And if Spain as a whole voted against, that would have meant keeping the previous Franco-era dictatorial laws, which probably also forbade Catalonia's independence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Any constitution article that forbids secession or make it unrealistic is worthless. The self-determination right of the Catalan people goes above any of such constitutional clause.
You are joking right?
I guess if your wife wants a divorce you will tell her that she can't unless you both agree?
It doesn't. I don't live in a banana republic.
The EU doesn't want the UK to leave. They still accept the democratic decision. Unlike Spain.
I agree that ideally there should be a framework (and a realistic one). Spain's so-called framework would be to hold a Spain-wide referendum on the issue. It's a complete joke, just like it would have been a joke to even suggest the Brexit referendum should have been EU-wide.
When a framework for independence is lacking, the organization of a referendum is the preferable option and this is exactly what Catalonia did. What else could have they done any differently to please Madrid?
And you don't see any difference between what 'another country' does vs what your OWN country, where you are citizen, does?
On independence of a region where you don't live? No. Otherwise, a country, say, an European colonial power could keep a colony forever even if 100% of the citizen of the colony want independence? Do you even realize the consequences of what you are saying?
Why should they? Canada is not a direct democracy and never has pretended to be one
Because it's dumb to participate in a referendum, like Canada did for the "No" side in 1995 and 1980, and not even recognize the result.
At least Madrid was clear on this one, they said outright they wouldn'T recognize the result. Canada was voluntarily unclear, so that it can't be called anti-democratic, while at the same time send the message to Quebec that its independence plans could fail (like Catalonia today) even in case of a Yes victory.
You don't play games with self-determinations and democratic rights. There is no place for such cowardice.
What about how the rest of Canada feels about it? They may own property in quebec, have businesses and investments in quebec, or have family in quebec - and they are all seriously impacted as well.
So what? They may have family and property in another country. They are free to sell. Are you saying Canada should be forced to join back the UK? Ever thought of people with family in both countries?
At least Quebec held a referendum to leave Canada. Canada left the UK without even consulting its population!
Unilateral secession is complicated.
I agree. That's why there is a simple solution. Bilateral secession. It doesn't mean the other part of the country need to approve by a referendum too. That would be as stupid as requiring both members to agree to a divorce. What bilateral secession means would be for Spain to acknowledge Catalonia's will to be independent and negotiate the transition. You know, just like the EU is doing with the UK right now.
Catalonia never asked for unilateral secession. Spain did.
My friends used to jokingly suggest we hold a referendum in the rest of Canada to draw a border around the most separatist parts of quebec out of the country, and just kick those regions out.
Your friends are probably not aware of the Montevideo convention on statehood. You don't gerrymander with states. And even though a state doesn't have to be contiguous (USA is doing fine with Alaska), your imaginary boundary probably make no sense. But your friends aren't the first ones to get that idea. Apartheid South Africa did.
The only difference is that the Canadian government chose not to send the police to block the voting process.
Canada, unlike the UK, never said they'd recognize a "Yes" victory. They also spent way more money than what was allowed under the Quebec referendum law.
So in order of democratic score, we have UK > Canada > Spain.
Had Spain helped, they could have had a better referendum of course. But they chose not to.