I never mentioned the destruction of an unfertilized egg. stop with The red herrings.
I have only mentioned the deliberate destruction of an embryo.
As to: "it is impossible to understand how you initial assessment is anything more than an "I don't like this" with big words."
What does like have to do with obligation? There are plenty of things that I do out of obligation that I do not like, and many things I like but do not do out of obligation.
I find the deliberate destruction deliberate of an embryo morally objectionable how is that hard to understand? There are such things as objective truths, just because the typical relativistic person today rejects that concept in no way defeats the statement that there are objective truths.
I have severe moral issues with any procedure which results in the deliberate destruction of an embryo. No, I am not utilitarian yes, I am a deontologist (rule set not act).
So Apple is going to sue claiming Nokia shouldn't be asking for different (obviously higher) license fees?
Yes, amongst other things.
Or in other words, that Nokia shouldn't be allowed to charge what they want, that would be somehow unfair
When you have a monopoly on technology as ubiquitous as Nokia's cell technology patents, yes it is unfair. You have two choices when you effectively control an industry with patents. 1) license them to everyone with the same or at least similar terms 2) give up the patents to other companies
I wonder if Nokia changed terms when Apple balked.
Most likely
And when do courts get to tell Nokia how much they should charge?
The courts get to decide about charges and terms when one company controls the technology for an entire industry the way Nokia does. Why is this fair? Because without said intervention Nokia becomes the authority of who can and cannot make cell phones today.
No, you might want to look at the background info again. this may be what Nokia initially claimed but neither side would say that is was the case now. Amongst other things Nokia wanted to charge apple differently than other manufacturers or at least they claim that in the counter suit. Nokia and Apple did have a shared licensing agreement at one point. Nokia tried to change the terms to something they liked better, Apple said get stuffed and it went downhill from there.
Somewhere along the lines you seem to have gotten the mistaken idea that America is a democracy. It is not a democracy it is a democratic republic. If you do not like your representative then either run yourself or find one you can back.
2000 was so last millennium also, but welcome to post modernity where 10 "gadgets" include 12 things: 2 of them were not in this decade (OS X and Canon Digital ELPH) and 2 are not even gadgets (OS X and Win XP).
I believe any hopes for a Spaceballs sequel died with John Candy, unfortunately.
They could do a prequel! Or give us the long-awaited "Jews In Space!"
Wasn't that called Battlestar Galactica?
Work with me a second: We all know BSG was Mormons in Space, but Mormons believe they are at least spiritually descended (if not genetically) from the tribes of Israel lost in the Diaspora that came to the now USA and became tribes of Native (North) American Indians. So at least in the view of the creator BSG was Jews in Space.
All this tells us is two things: 1) you were unfortunate in the Mac that you purchased did not last as long as they do on average, but then it is called average for a reason. 2) You do not know how to handle a Mac
given that in the US "A patent for an invention is a grant of property rights by the U.S. Government" (from the US Patent Office), Publishing would just provide for prior art to remove a future patent by someone else. The only way to protect your invention for future monetary gain by yourself is to patent it. Now, that being said is what you have developed actually patentable or is it one of the silly things we see constant surfacing by patent trolls?
One way of making some money and also helping out your fellow humans would be to publish your invention and make yourself available for "for fee consulting" or development of your invention. This is a win win situation as whomever has the money to bring it to market will want your intellectual knowledge to go along with the design for any future adaptations.
Then you have something eating up processor cycles and I suggest you look there. on my 1.83 dual with only 2gb of ram and the sad graphics chip in my macbook I have no problem. In fact the only other time I have problems is when streaming video from a file on my server, but that has more to do with caching than Quicktime.
1) No transcoding. These days, most players will just play DivX natively. Not only do you have to transcode every file for the Iphone/Ipod touch/etc --- but apple doesn't even give you the software for it. Seroiusly. iTunes does not support transcoding from any of the most common internet video codecs/formats. About all it can convert on its own is mpeg/uncompressed avi/quicktime into h.264. This is ridiculous. Not only are they lacking in key functionality, but they force you to find third party software to overcome this deficit.
I guess if you call a codec 3rd party software you are right, anything quicktime can play it can re-encode and other than drm protected windows media files and some old windows codec AVIs i have no problem opening any media file in QuickTime.
2) Hard drive mode support. Almost every other player lets you just view your video/mp3 files on the device as a hard drive and copy files back and forth as you see fit without using ANY software other than your operating system. You want to sync your files? Use iTunes. Nevermind that it's one of the buggiest/bloated/unintuitive/god awful pieces of software I've ever used. You're stuck with it.
Unless you just enable hard drive mode support on the ipod. If you do it shows up as a hard drive just fine. I know it is hard to check a box these days though.
3) Audio codecs. Apple players don't even support half of the codecs that other players support. Again, this is part of their strategy to lock you into the "itunes" universe.
It doesn't take a visible spark to kill a component, a visible spark takes ~500V to feel it and 1kV to see the spark. To destroy a component just hit it with 10x its operational voltage and it will likely be toast, that could be as low as 25V for something that operates at 2.5V.
I understand what you are saying but you are presenting a common misconception regarding ESD. Plus just because you cannot generate a visible spark one day doesn't mean you can't the next.
GP (aka clueless poster) says untrained people should "tamper" and "attempt to dissemble and re-assemble" CRTs.
I say thats dumb because it can kill people and some idiot mod thinks I am trolling?
Sorry Mod but CRTs can knock you for a loop and potentially kill someone if handled incorrectly. There is a reason why there is specific training for discharging both the high and low voltage sides of a CRT. Why you wear a static discharge strap on th e hand with the tool and you work one handed until the unit is discharged. Its so it doesn't go across your heart and stop it from beating. So go take your accusations of trolling and go get a clue.
Right have a bunch of common people play with CRTs... Thats always a good way to start (a lawsuit). How about not letting them play with things that can easily kill them to start with. And it is not just the high voltage side that can reach out and grab out, the low voltage side of CRTs can potentially do more damage than the high side.
Go with basics: EM interference/signal crossover and Electrostatic Discharge. Each one can be taught in a 30 minutes session and would provide such a foundation to further lectures.
Note: I originally posted the AC and the reason it is even vaguely humorous is because it will only take minor flash updates to the current chipsets to make them fully compliant, while they are effectively compliant now.
A great deal of Snow Leopard was rewritten (including I believe the last legacy core of finder finally). APIs get depreciated and the cruft gets thrown away. More than likely PalmOS synching used some of the cruft and or APIs that were no longer needed otherwise. PLus there have been 3rd party apps to synch for quite some time, they will just be more used now.
Read my original post "As far as I am concerned if it has only X chromosomes it is female, else it is male." xxxy is a variation of klinefelter's syndrome people with klinefelter's syndrome are male regardless of external genitalia. Sorry guys, but I am consistent.
Slashdot Mirror
I never mentioned the destruction of an unfertilized egg. stop with The red herrings.
I have only mentioned the deliberate destruction of an embryo.
As to: "it is impossible to understand how you initial assessment is anything more than an "I don't like this" with big words."
What does like have to do with obligation? There are plenty of things that I do out of obligation that I do not like, and many things I like but do not do out of obligation.
I find the deliberate destruction deliberate of an embryo morally objectionable how is that hard to understand? There are such things as objective truths, just because the typical relativistic person today rejects that concept in no way defeats the statement that there are objective truths.
what part of rule set deontology did you not get? try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics then head on over to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ oh and while you are at it please take note of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies.
Why do I even bother?
Would you actually like to read the article? I actually took the time to where as you obviously did not.
"may not have survived to term" how very utilitarian of you.
I have severe moral issues with any procedure which results in the deliberate destruction of an embryo. No, I am not utilitarian yes, I am a deontologist (rule set not act).
Really? I thought the directors cut was worse than the theatrical release.
So Apple is going to sue claiming Nokia shouldn't be asking for different (obviously higher) license fees?
Yes, amongst other things.
Or in other words, that Nokia shouldn't be allowed to charge what they want, that would be somehow unfair
When you have a monopoly on technology as ubiquitous as Nokia's cell technology patents, yes it is unfair. You have two choices when you effectively control an industry with patents. 1) license them to everyone with the same or at least similar terms 2) give up the patents to other companies
I wonder if Nokia changed terms when Apple balked.
Most likely
And when do courts get to tell Nokia how much they should charge?
The courts get to decide about charges and terms when one company controls the technology for an entire industry the way Nokia does. Why is this fair? Because without said intervention Nokia becomes the authority of who can and cannot make cell phones today.
No, you might want to look at the background info again. this may be what Nokia initially claimed but neither side would say that is was the case now. Amongst other things Nokia wanted to charge apple differently than other manufacturers or at least they claim that in the counter suit. Nokia and Apple did have a shared licensing agreement at one point. Nokia tried to change the terms to something they liked better, Apple said get stuffed and it went downhill from there.
They have been "discussing" this for some time now, if you had not noticed.
Further, Apple and Nokia are not tying up normal or federal courts with this issue: The filings are with the ITC (International Trade Commission).
The mission of the Commission is to (1) administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate in a fair and objective manner; (2) provide the President, USTR, and Congress with independent analysis, information, and support on matters of tariffs, international trade, and U.S. competitiveness; and (3) maintain the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).
In all fairness, this is a response to Nokia's filing last month to ban Apple imports. So so far it has been:
Nokia sues Apple
Apple counter sues Nokia
Nokia seeks to ban Apple Imports via ITC
Apple responds by seeking to ban Nokia imports via the ITC
info from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ao_5HVbD_IRM
Somewhere along the lines you seem to have gotten the mistaken idea that America is a democracy. It is not a democracy it is a democratic republic. If you do not like your representative then either run yourself or find one you can back.
2000 was so last millennium also, but welcome to post modernity where 10 "gadgets" include 12 things: 2 of them were not in this decade (OS X and Canon Digital ELPH) and 2 are not even gadgets (OS X and Win XP).
I believe any hopes for a Spaceballs sequel died with John Candy, unfortunately.
They could do a prequel! Or give us the long-awaited "Jews In Space!"
Wasn't that called Battlestar Galactica?
Work with me a second: We all know BSG was Mormons in Space, but Mormons believe they are at least spiritually descended (if not genetically) from the tribes of Israel lost in the Diaspora that came to the now USA and became tribes of Native (North) American Indians. So at least in the view of the creator BSG was Jews in Space.
The summary is wrong, there is a thing called "theft of service".
All this tells us is two things:
1) you were unfortunate in the Mac that you purchased did not last as long as they do on average, but then it is called average for a reason.
2) You do not know how to handle a Mac
given that in the US "A patent for an invention is a grant of property rights by the U.S. Government" (from the US Patent Office), Publishing would just provide for prior art to remove a future patent by someone else. The only way to protect your invention for future monetary gain by yourself is to patent it. Now, that being said is what you have developed actually patentable or is it one of the silly things we see constant surfacing by patent trolls?
One way of making some money and also helping out your fellow humans would be to publish your invention and make yourself available for "for fee consulting" or development of your invention. This is a win win situation as whomever has the money to bring it to market will want your intellectual knowledge to go along with the design for any future adaptations.
Well you have already answered your own question... xp
Then you have something eating up processor cycles and I suggest you look there. on my 1.83 dual with only 2gb of ram and the sad graphics chip in my macbook I have no problem. In fact the only other time I have problems is when streaming video from a file on my server, but that has more to do with caching than Quicktime.
1) No transcoding. These days, most players will just play DivX natively. Not only do you have to transcode every file for the Iphone/Ipod touch/etc --- but apple doesn't even give you the software for it. Seroiusly. iTunes does not support transcoding from any of the most common internet video codecs/formats. About all it can convert on its own is mpeg/uncompressed avi/quicktime into h.264. This is ridiculous. Not only are they lacking in key functionality, but they force you to find third party software to overcome this deficit.
I guess if you call a codec 3rd party software you are right, anything quicktime can play it can re-encode and other than drm protected windows media files and some old windows codec AVIs i have no problem opening any media file in QuickTime.
2) Hard drive mode support. Almost every other player lets you just view your video/mp3 files on the device as a hard drive and copy files back and forth as you see fit without using ANY software other than your operating system. You want to sync your files? Use iTunes. Nevermind that it's one of the buggiest/bloated/unintuitive/god awful pieces of software I've ever used. You're stuck with it.
Unless you just enable hard drive mode support on the ipod. If you do it shows up as a hard drive just fine. I know it is hard to check a box these days though.
3) Audio codecs. Apple players don't even support half of the codecs that other players support. Again, this is part of their strategy to lock you into the "itunes" universe.
This one I have to give you, but only this one.
It doesn't take a visible spark to kill a component, a visible spark takes ~500V to feel it and 1kV to see the spark. To destroy a component just hit it with 10x its operational voltage and it will likely be toast, that could be as low as 25V for something that operates at 2.5V.
I understand what you are saying but you are presenting a common misconception regarding ESD. Plus just because you cannot generate a visible spark one day doesn't mean you can't the next.
GP (aka clueless poster) says untrained people should "tamper" and "attempt to dissemble and re-assemble" CRTs.
I say thats dumb because it can kill people and some idiot mod thinks I am trolling?
Sorry Mod but CRTs can knock you for a loop and potentially kill someone if handled incorrectly. There is a reason why there is specific training for discharging both the high and low voltage sides of a CRT. Why you wear a static discharge strap on th e hand with the tool and you work one handed until the unit is discharged. Its so it doesn't go across your heart and stop it from beating. So go take your accusations of trolling and go get a clue.
Right have a bunch of common people play with CRTs... Thats always a good way to start (a lawsuit). How about not letting them play with things that can easily kill them to start with. And it is not just the high voltage side that can reach out and grab out, the low voltage side of CRTs can potentially do more damage than the high side.
Go with basics: EM interference/signal crossover and Electrostatic Discharge. Each one can be taught in a 30 minutes session and would provide such a foundation to further lectures.
Note: I originally posted the AC and the reason it is even vaguely humorous is because it will only take minor flash updates to the current chipsets to make them fully compliant, while they are effectively compliant now.
A great deal of Snow Leopard was rewritten (including I believe the last legacy core of finder finally). APIs get depreciated and the cruft gets thrown away. More than likely PalmOS synching used some of the cruft and or APIs that were no longer needed otherwise. PLus there have been 3rd party apps to synch for quite some time, they will just be more used now.
Read my original post "As far as I am concerned if it has only X chromosomes it is female, else it is male."
xxxy is a variation of klinefelter's syndrome people with klinefelter's syndrome are male regardless of external genitalia.
Sorry guys, but I am consistent.