Plus, there are also Jewish people in the administration, and Judaism has no doctrine that could be called "fundamentalist".
There are Jewish fundamentalists, they believe in the inherent right of Jews to the Holy Land over all others and that the Talmud is the only diagram for their lives. Fundamentalist thinking exists in every religion.
For all intents Martin Luther was a fundamentalist because he believed the Catholic church had turned into a money-making operation and was so pissed off he ended up creating a whole branch of Christianity with his 13 Thesis.
But, I think the parent was referring to George Bush's born-again conversion which is typically very fundamentalist. Cheney, meanwhile, doesn't believe in anything, except maybe money.
As an atheist I have always wondered about prayer. The muslims go though an elobarate ritual of genuflecting and kneeling, the christians seem to think kneeling or bowing the head is enough.
The thing I wonder is this. If your god is omnipresent and omnicient why do you have to go through physicals gyrations in order to be heard by god? Most christians pray out loud why is that?
It is to show respect and to show a specific ritual act that constitutes part of a conversation. Just as you would say hello even at the beginning of a phone conversation and look someone in the eyes in person, you speak aloud to god and kneel. If you look at religions this is very typical behavior, the specific act, always aloud, of praying always includeds kneeling and bowing: Buddhists to Aztecs, Shintoists to Shi'ites.
I didn't know California had turned into Rome. Poor Christians, huddling in dark corners and whispering softly. Next you might be fed to the lions!
As to praying in public, no one should tell you to stop because you're 'forcing' your religion on them. However, I would inquire if a Starbucks is necessarily the best place for prayer, being that it is an entirely profane place. To each his own.
Religion itself isn't the problem, but religions of various sorts have been at the heart of almost every instance of violent and ordorous repression: its justification and its mechanism. Once you understand that, you can understand that as this society continues to transition towards private, individual religion, a public group prayer would seem to be dangerous and backwards-minded. You must also realize that fellow Christians, fundamentalists who decry this society as 'evil' and spout all kinds of hatred and idiocy also make public prayer circles. The fundamentalists have climbed into your bed and mainstream Christianity has allowed these fleas to fester and bite. When someone tells you to stop, tell them you are sorry to offend, but it is your right to pray.
Personally, I think prayer is a private, individual act, a quiet moment of introspection with God himself and no other ancillaries, but I would defend your right to pray even in Starbucks, just don't hog up all the tables, I need my coffee and my wireless.
How can you just toss creationism out as 'not science'...the nature of science is for presentation of facts and interpreting them...just because creationists have different theories...once a theory is mature enough and has sufficient evidence, even the church can't deny it...
Please describe to me the 'theory' of creationsim, including observable facts, measurements, and experiments that can be repeated in a lab under the same conditions.
Oh, that's right you can't. Creationism is not a theory, but the absence of theory, the big doubt, the sufficient but maybe. Creationism takes the beliefs of three monotheistic religions and dresses it up in a lab coat. Does evolution have gaps? Of course, we're not done with the theory yet, just like we're not entirely sure about the speed of light. Creationism is akin to saying since the speed of light varies it must be based on the speed of angel's wings.
Creationism is belief, it is faith, and the fact that you can't discern between you faith and fact worries me.
And the church denied the heliocentric theory for as long as they could, even in the face of specific verifiable evidence; the Catholic church still forced Galileo to recant his statements on threat of execution. Should we really follow the same model now? Isn't the Galapegos, DNA, observation, and thousands of experiments enough to show that evolution is a pretty good theory?
But, you are right about one thing, religion feeds on doubt, which is all the 'theory' of Creationism is. Doubt.
This got a troll!...Hmmm, the first sentence uses liberal trolling, which ironically is kind of trollish, and then the comment about comments. This should be edited, because what follows is truth. I'm beginning to wonder whether western society has simply hit a wall and is beginning to back-track to pre-Enlightenment ideas. And yes, as a society built on ideas, the inability to have an intelligent conversation is a death-knell.
Good point about FDR, although the metaphor gets stretched a little when you consider FDR waited until Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the Phillipeans before launching his campaign. And remember that Tojo was a good friend of Hitler.
The UN-program, while a disaster, did help Iraqis just not the ones you would want--Saddam and his Baath party being...well Iraqis. The program, however, could have worked, except with Saddam gaming the system as always. Just a few threads needed to be cleaned up.
However, you do also have to admit that Haliburton is making quite a pretty penny on this little deal, not to mention the enormous over-charges to the US Army, the overcharging of oil they ship around the country, and their cozy relationship to a certain Vice President. Haliburton is already under investigation, and I'm sure that they have been engaged in the same profiteering that got FDR so fired up during World War II.
History, as always, is full of heros and villans even on the same side.
I am sure a lot of agnostics/atheists even enjoyed "Passion of the Christ" as good (or so I heard) historical fiction, like Troy,/i>
Ummm....Troy was a epic poem, as spoken by the famous bard Homer. It was never meant to be historical, the Illiad--of which Troy was hastily cut from--had the influences of all the Olympian gods and acts as an allegory for the later Romans who would use the escaping Trojans as part of their history to assure their historical importance overly the newly conquered Greeks. There is some evidence to suggest that was a city like Troy, but for all intents and purposes, Achilies, Paris, Helen, and Hector are ficitonal characters.
Troy is more historical than Lord of the Rings, but less than say Gladiator, which is to say much less than either Braveheart or Glory.
No, seriously, it's not a theory but a belief based on the writings of people 5,000 years ago. It is a belief held by the monotheistic religions of the Middle East.
It can be your belief notwithstanding, but to ignore the borders between faith and theory is to disrespect them both.
Evolution is a theory, one which has been proven by experimentation and by observation, by the discovery of DNA and RNA, by the discovery of fantastic and niche species, by all the tools we currently have to think about the world around us. Creationism cannot by its very nature be proven nor disproven because it directly relates to the faith of millions of people.
Think of it, there is no way to disprove that God exists nor to prove he exists, your evidence is faith.
Another koan for you: Does the bible describe electricity? Does the bible describe
nuclear power? Does the bible describe DNA? Why not if it is the central repository of all scientific knowledge?
Faith and science have walked hand-in-hand since at least Aristotle, but they have come to odds because of people like you who insist that the bible is the entire story, all knowledge, when everyone from Galileo and Newton to St. Thomas Aquinas disagree with you.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes that wind, solar, hydro-electric and tidal are all at the height of their technology. These systems, especially if given the kind of R&D and infastructure given to oil, will evolve into something we can really use. Solar cells are expensive to make now, but what if they were made in large masses, the cost per cell would drop. Wind isn't consistent, except where it is, and the windmills are ugly, but so are drilling operations, coal mines, smog, etc. And hydroelectric is different from tidal, which uses the constant pounding of the surf. Furthermore, there's also geo-thermal.
All of these technologies are limited because we haven't worked on them, they've been at the back-burner of our national energy policy while we spent millions figuring out new ways to suck up the 'bubbling crude' and supporting every mediocre and hostile regime throughout the world.
Even nuclear is problematic, but there are solutions as well. Frankly, I think if environmentalists realized how much toxic and radiological materials were already in coal-burning they'd feel much better about nuclear, where at least it can be contained.
The point is, we need to work on the alternative/renewable energy sources now! Right now, before we run low on oil, and especially before half of China suddenly decides they need an Escalade. The price for oil will continue to rise, and if it continues past 5.00 per gallon, solar cells will suddenly look cheap.
SUVs are problematic in the sense that they are significantly larger, heavier, and have a high-center of gravity than either mini-vans or sedans. Furthemore, I feel that most people buy SUVs out of an illogical need to either 'keep up with the Joneses' or to have a large commanding view. These people, especially the second group, tend to be dangerous drivers who can't see out of the vehicle, don't understand their blindspots, and tend to corner at higher-speed. These people also accelerate in the rain, as if four-wheel drive and 500 pounds of torque is going to help their hydro-planning assses. And these people annoy the shit out of me...
However, they have every right to buy such vehicles, just as these same idiots probably owned muscle cars in the 60s. And, yeah a soccer mom would be safer driving a minivan, they don't use the ground clearance or the capability of their Tahoe, and anyone who buys a H2 IMHO is a total poseur. Let's be honest, most people buy an SUV because they think of minivans as helplessly uncool--which they are.
But, they should be free to be stupid, as frustrating as it is. And you're right the auto-makers should begin selling efficient vehicles as a positive, as a great addition to the really cool vehicle they were already thinking about. Your posts have been particular cognizant of this issue, and I appreciate it.
Redmond, start your photocopiers!
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Or the same features coming in Safari when Tiger is released in April.
The RSS news aggregator was announced at WWDC nine months ago.
First, there are two American continents, but I think that was just sloppy language on your part, which is of course the inherent problem. Language can be imprecise and yes this is caused by the creation of a country that uses the name of its continent in its title, but English doesn't have any good solutions for this. I have personally never heard Canadians, Mexicans, Columbians, Brazillians, Argentinians, call themselves American, and I don't think that the label American would work in the sense that Germans call themselves Europeans.
I think the fact that Germans, etc. call themselves European is unique: Japanese typically don't call themselves Asians and neither do Pakistanis because Asian typifies a particular group to an East Oriental identity. European is the most specific of continental indentifiers and even that distinction divides Kurds into European Kurds (in Turkey) from Asian Kurds (Iraq). African works until you go to Egypt, where suddenly the continent is Africa, but the people indentify themselves as either Egyptians, Arabs, Muslims, etc.
So, my point is still the name is just a name, so USians (how do you even use that in conversation) are Americans. Even Spanish translates the United States of America into los Estados Unidos de América, which is the primary language of Latin America, and French translates it into Les Etats-Unis d'Amérique. So between the three major languages of the Americas, all would use 'American' as shorthand for people from the United States.
But, if you're from French Guiana, Columbia or Brazil what do you call yourself? American? No, you call yourself Guianian, Columbian or Brazillian. It's not that people from the United States are claiming the whole Western Hemisphere, it's that the name of our country ends with America, which makes us American. Just as someone from French Guiana would not be called a FGian (!?) or French, citizens of the United States of America are called American.
This is just one of those goofy things that happens in English.
I think he did allow for such things, including acknowledging whistleblower laws, et. al. He noted that there is a difference between something in the public interest versus the interest of the public. That right there is a nice bright line between schematics and mere rumors.
Zeig heil was the salute Nazis used, you know Nazis the genocidal monsters who tore through Europe and slaughtered millions. Comparing Apple to the Nazis is truly and hopelessly wrong and you should be ashamed.
And you, like many others have entirely missed the point: Apple isn't pissed because of the release of the Mac Mini, they're pissed because of the release of information regarding Asteroid a product that is forthcoming, but not yet.
Comparing the release of Apple's trade information is very different from the situation dramatized in the "Insider" the public interest is different from public interest. A journalist must be willing to go to court to protect their sources and yes they must be able to prove that their revealing of information must have served the public interest.
Think of it this way, I can go and sign an NDA, immediately break it by speaking to a journalist and not expect any kind of consequences for breaking that NDA. This, you must admit, is very problematic.
I didn't think you were being sarcastic, so apologies are in order.
But, on the issue of IP (a grab-bag term for lots of very different things) I think you understand IP in a simplistic way, namely one gets a patent and gets to sue. Intellectual Property is an idea that copyright, trademark, and patents are the same laws, subject to the same legal systems. But, this isn't true at all. Furthermore, while the US Patent Office did give these guys a patent, they shouldn't have because of the significant prior art. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are around to protect the initial author's rights, but for a limited time with limitations on those rights. In the case of patents, this is to defend the initial inventor while s/he brings a product to the market; it is not for a company to store a portfolio for ligation. This is an abuse of the patent system, and if you support this kind of litigation, no you clearly do not understand "IP" and the reasons it exists, and neither does the plantiff, nor his lawyers. Nor, I believe, do they care.
Furthermore, Apple would have to be aware that these patents existed, and that could have been do so when Apple (and Rio, etc.) brought the first Mp3 players to market. This company could have also defended their IP against Amazon, et. al who 'abused' their IP. But, this company didn't, waiting until iTunes became a 'best-seller' before demanding 12%.
There is too much prior art, the patent is vague at best, and Apple should easily win this case. They are not infringing on "IP" because there is no real intellectual property here.
But, whatever, the IP system is busted and we need a fix soon.
ThinkSecret's mistake was to solicit information in spite of NDA agreements thereby facilitating the breaking of a contract. The problem is not that ThinkSecret published the information, lots of rumor sites did and they're not being sued, but that ThinkSecret acquired the information through arguably illegal sources.
If Apple assassinated Nick DePlume, then Apple would be commiting a crime...you know, murder?
If a military officer leaked top secret information to the press, s/he would be subject to military discipline.
A journalist who attained this same information would not be liable for the leak, however they would be asked by the court to specify who was their source, if the journalist refused, they would be jailed under contempt of court.
Journalists understand that this may be needed to protect their sources and so accept this as part of the professionalism of the job--most jailed journos are eventually released, protected by the media's lawyers, and are hailed as heroes to their profession.
Nick DePlume is going to have to accept that either he give up his sources or he's going to be in trouble, because he facilitated the breaking of NDAs; he did something illegal.
Now, can bloggers be professional journalists? Of course, but they need to be subject to the same levels of professionalism that others journos are, otherwise he's just a pretender.
Your speech is protected, whether you are a truck-driver or a journalist, however you cannot incite others to break the law or a contract. Sheild laws protect journalists in the same way that whistle-blower laws protect others.
The problem is not that Think Secret published the information, it's that Nick DePlume offered money to incite people who had signed NDAs to break their agreements with Apple. Nick, like many journalists before him, has a choice to either give up his sources' names in the interests of the court or to go to jail. Many journalists have served time to protect their sources and this is considered a part of the job. Journalists, like every other citizen, have no right to refuse a court order.
Dan is just the last scapegoat in a series of mistakes and miscalculations, the fakes were very well done, however the producers failed to 'fact-check' the information.
This failure is very different from Gannon/Guckert, a reporter who without credentials was still given access to White House briefings and when called upon gave an obvious party-line full of half-truths in place of a question while in the employ of a GOP party-mechanism.
This is different from Blair, who under pressure from deadlines and his own inexperience, simply made up his stories and well as faking datelines.
I agree, these are each entirely different problems that journalists have to face and avoid as professionals.
Talk about missing the point. The point was given enough thrust even a brick can fly, but that doesn't mean you want a flight of bricks. Efficiency is important.
However, Windows can be part of a cluster, it just isn't as efficient as UNIX or Linux.
...because you end up sounding narrow-minded and immature.
So you say that I sound like I'm 12 because I don't like Macs, then you proceed to spew out this nonesense as if it's any better
I didn't call you 12 because you don't like Macs, I called you 12 because you--for all intensive purposes--called Mac users faggy art students. I think that's pretty immature. And I was offering an opinion, hence IMHO; we can get into the specific and numerous reasons Windows sucks and you can defend it all you want. But, that wasn't really my point.
Of course. When you don't agree with the simple truth, make it sound like the truth is actually in your favor, but in an overly-complicated, totally abstract, completely unprobable way.
History is always complicated, but I will direct you to daringfireball.netfor succint history of the reasons the Macintosh was not accepted into businesses and in large numbers by home users. And there are lots of business histories that tell the story even better. And yeah, history is complex, not the simple dipole you need it to be; deal with it.
I was into computers long before my parents were...
Fine, cheap shot, but your attitude needs work, your posts are all acerbic attacks supporting Windows. Fine, you like Windows, especially XP--that's great--but don't just attack other people calling them fags, sheep, etc. because they disagree with you. Grow up.
Slashdot Mirror
There are Jewish fundamentalists, they believe in the inherent right of Jews to the Holy Land over all others and that the Talmud is the only diagram for their lives. Fundamentalist thinking exists in every religion.
For all intents Martin Luther was a fundamentalist because he believed the Catholic church had turned into a money-making operation and was so pissed off he ended up creating a whole branch of Christianity with his 13 Thesis.
But, I think the parent was referring to George Bush's born-again conversion which is typically very fundamentalist. Cheney, meanwhile, doesn't believe in anything, except maybe money.
As an atheist I have always wondered about prayer. The muslims go though an elobarate ritual of genuflecting and kneeling, the christians seem to think kneeling or bowing the head is enough. The thing I wonder is this. If your god is omnipresent and omnicient why do you have to go through physicals gyrations in order to be heard by god? Most christians pray out loud why is that? It is to show respect and to show a specific ritual act that constitutes part of a conversation. Just as you would say hello even at the beginning of a phone conversation and look someone in the eyes in person, you speak aloud to god and kneel. If you look at religions this is very typical behavior, the specific act, always aloud, of praying always includeds kneeling and bowing: Buddhists to Aztecs, Shintoists to Shi'ites.
As to praying in public, no one should tell you to stop because you're 'forcing' your religion on them. However, I would inquire if a Starbucks is necessarily the best place for prayer, being that it is an entirely profane place. To each his own.
Religion itself isn't the problem, but religions of various sorts have been at the heart of almost every instance of violent and ordorous repression: its justification and its mechanism. Once you understand that, you can understand that as this society continues to transition towards private, individual religion, a public group prayer would seem to be dangerous and backwards-minded. You must also realize that fellow Christians, fundamentalists who decry this society as 'evil' and spout all kinds of hatred and idiocy also make public prayer circles. The fundamentalists have climbed into your bed and mainstream Christianity has allowed these fleas to fester and bite. When someone tells you to stop, tell them you are sorry to offend, but it is your right to pray.
Personally, I think prayer is a private, individual act, a quiet moment of introspection with God himself and no other ancillaries, but I would defend your right to pray even in Starbucks, just don't hog up all the tables, I need my coffee and my wireless.
Seriously, go look it up.
Faster!
Oh, that's right you can't. Creationism is not a theory, but the absence of theory, the big doubt, the sufficient but maybe. Creationism takes the beliefs of three monotheistic religions and dresses it up in a lab coat. Does evolution have gaps? Of course, we're not done with the theory yet, just like we're not entirely sure about the speed of light. Creationism is akin to saying since the speed of light varies it must be based on the speed of angel's wings.
Creationism is belief, it is faith, and the fact that you can't discern between you faith and fact worries me.
And the church denied the heliocentric theory for as long as they could, even in the face of specific verifiable evidence; the Catholic church still forced Galileo to recant his statements on threat of execution. Should we really follow the same model now? Isn't the Galapegos, DNA, observation, and thousands of experiments enough to show that evolution is a pretty good theory?
But, you are right about one thing, religion feeds on doubt, which is all the 'theory' of Creationism is. Doubt.
This got a troll! ...Hmmm, the first sentence uses liberal trolling, which ironically is kind of trollish, and then the comment about comments. This should be edited, because what follows is truth. I'm beginning to wonder whether western society has simply hit a wall and is beginning to back-track to pre-Enlightenment ideas. And yes, as a society built on ideas, the inability to have an intelligent conversation is a death-knell.
The UN-program, while a disaster, did help Iraqis just not the ones you would want--Saddam and his Baath party being...well Iraqis. The program, however, could have worked, except with Saddam gaming the system as always. Just a few threads needed to be cleaned up.
However, you do also have to admit that Haliburton is making quite a pretty penny on this little deal, not to mention the enormous over-charges to the US Army, the overcharging of oil they ship around the country, and their cozy relationship to a certain Vice President. Haliburton is already under investigation, and I'm sure that they have been engaged in the same profiteering that got FDR so fired up during World War II.
History, as always, is full of heros and villans even on the same side.
Ummm....Troy was a epic poem, as spoken by the famous bard Homer. It was never meant to be historical, the Illiad--of which Troy was hastily cut from--had the influences of all the Olympian gods and acts as an allegory for the later Romans who would use the escaping Trojans as part of their history to assure their historical importance overly the newly conquered Greeks. There is some evidence to suggest that was a city like Troy, but for all intents and purposes, Achilies, Paris, Helen, and Hector are ficitonal characters.
Troy is more historical than Lord of the Rings, but less than say Gladiator, which is to say much less than either Braveheart or Glory.
No, seriously, it's not a theory but a belief based on the writings of people 5,000 years ago. It is a belief held by the monotheistic religions of the Middle East.
It can be your belief notwithstanding, but to ignore the borders between faith and theory is to disrespect them both. Evolution is a theory, one which has been proven by experimentation and by observation, by the discovery of DNA and RNA, by the discovery of fantastic and niche species, by all the tools we currently have to think about the world around us. Creationism cannot by its very nature be proven nor disproven because it directly relates to the faith of millions of people.
Think of it, there is no way to disprove that God exists nor to prove he exists, your evidence is faith.
Another koan for you: Does the bible describe electricity? Does the bible describe nuclear power? Does the bible describe DNA? Why not if it is the central repository of all scientific knowledge? Faith and science have walked hand-in-hand since at least Aristotle, but they have come to odds because of people like you who insist that the bible is the entire story, all knowledge, when everyone from Galileo and Newton to St. Thomas Aquinas disagree with you.
All of these technologies are limited because we haven't worked on them, they've been at the back-burner of our national energy policy while we spent millions figuring out new ways to suck up the 'bubbling crude' and supporting every mediocre and hostile regime throughout the world.
Even nuclear is problematic, but there are solutions as well. Frankly, I think if environmentalists realized how much toxic and radiological materials were already in coal-burning they'd feel much better about nuclear, where at least it can be contained.
The point is, we need to work on the alternative/renewable energy sources now! Right now, before we run low on oil, and especially before half of China suddenly decides they need an Escalade. The price for oil will continue to rise, and if it continues past 5.00 per gallon, solar cells will suddenly look cheap.
However, they have every right to buy such vehicles, just as these same idiots probably owned muscle cars in the 60s. And, yeah a soccer mom would be safer driving a minivan, they don't use the ground clearance or the capability of their Tahoe, and anyone who buys a H2 IMHO is a total poseur. Let's be honest, most people buy an SUV because they think of minivans as helplessly uncool--which they are.
But, they should be free to be stupid, as frustrating as it is. And you're right the auto-makers should begin selling efficient vehicles as a positive, as a great addition to the really cool vehicle they were already thinking about. Your posts have been particular cognizant of this issue, and I appreciate it.
The RSS news aggregator was announced at WWDC nine months ago.
I think the fact that Germans, etc. call themselves European is unique: Japanese typically don't call themselves Asians and neither do Pakistanis because Asian typifies a particular group to an East Oriental identity. European is the most specific of continental indentifiers and even that distinction divides Kurds into European Kurds (in Turkey) from Asian Kurds (Iraq). African works until you go to Egypt, where suddenly the continent is Africa, but the people indentify themselves as either Egyptians, Arabs, Muslims, etc.
So, my point is still the name is just a name, so USians (how do you even use that in conversation) are Americans. Even Spanish translates the United States of America into los Estados Unidos de América, which is the primary language of Latin America, and French translates it into Les Etats-Unis d'Amérique. So between the three major languages of the Americas, all would use 'American' as shorthand for people from the United States.
This is just one of those goofy things that happens in English.
I think he did allow for such things, including acknowledging whistleblower laws, et. al. He noted that there is a difference between something in the public interest versus the interest of the public. That right there is a nice bright line between schematics and mere rumors.
Zeig heil was the salute Nazis used, you know Nazis the genocidal monsters who tore through Europe and slaughtered millions. Comparing Apple to the Nazis is truly and hopelessly wrong and you should be ashamed.
And you, like many others have entirely missed the point: Apple isn't pissed because of the release of the Mac Mini, they're pissed because of the release of information regarding Asteroid a product that is forthcoming, but not yet.
Jackass.
Comparing the release of Apple's trade information is very different from the situation dramatized in the "Insider" the public interest is different from public interest. A journalist must be willing to go to court to protect their sources and yes they must be able to prove that their revealing of information must have served the public interest. Think of it this way, I can go and sign an NDA, immediately break it by speaking to a journalist and not expect any kind of consequences for breaking that NDA. This, you must admit, is very problematic.
2005 sucks!
But, on the issue of IP (a grab-bag term for lots of very different things) I think you understand IP in a simplistic way, namely one gets a patent and gets to sue. Intellectual Property is an idea that copyright, trademark, and patents are the same laws, subject to the same legal systems. But, this isn't true at all. Furthermore, while the US Patent Office did give these guys a patent, they shouldn't have because of the significant prior art. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are around to protect the initial author's rights, but for a limited time with limitations on those rights. In the case of patents, this is to defend the initial inventor while s/he brings a product to the market; it is not for a company to store a portfolio for ligation. This is an abuse of the patent system, and if you support this kind of litigation, no you clearly do not understand "IP" and the reasons it exists, and neither does the plantiff, nor his lawyers. Nor, I believe, do they care.
Furthermore, Apple would have to be aware that these patents existed, and that could have been do so when Apple (and Rio, etc.) brought the first Mp3 players to market. This company could have also defended their IP against Amazon, et. al who 'abused' their IP. But, this company didn't, waiting until iTunes became a 'best-seller' before demanding 12%.
There is too much prior art, the patent is vague at best, and Apple should easily win this case. They are not infringing on "IP" because there is no real intellectual property here.
But, whatever, the IP system is busted and we need a fix soon.
ThinkSecret's mistake was to solicit information in spite of NDA agreements thereby facilitating the breaking of a contract. The problem is not that ThinkSecret published the information, lots of rumor sites did and they're not being sued, but that ThinkSecret acquired the information through arguably illegal sources. If Apple assassinated Nick DePlume, then Apple would be commiting a crime...you know, murder?
If a military officer leaked top secret information to the press, s/he would be subject to military discipline.
A journalist who attained this same information would not be liable for the leak, however they would be asked by the court to specify who was their source, if the journalist refused, they would be jailed under contempt of court.
Journalists understand that this may be needed to protect their sources and so accept this as part of the professionalism of the job--most jailed journos are eventually released, protected by the media's lawyers, and are hailed as heroes to their profession.
Nick DePlume is going to have to accept that either he give up his sources or he's going to be in trouble, because he facilitated the breaking of NDAs; he did something illegal.
Now, can bloggers be professional journalists? Of course, but they need to be subject to the same levels of professionalism that others journos are, otherwise he's just a pretender.
The problem is not that Think Secret published the information, it's that Nick DePlume offered money to incite people who had signed NDAs to break their agreements with Apple. Nick, like many journalists before him, has a choice to either give up his sources' names in the interests of the court or to go to jail. Many journalists have served time to protect their sources and this is considered a part of the job. Journalists, like every other citizen, have no right to refuse a court order.
This failure is very different from Gannon/Guckert, a reporter who without credentials was still given access to White House briefings and when called upon gave an obvious party-line full of half-truths in place of a question while in the employ of a GOP party-mechanism.
This is different from Blair, who under pressure from deadlines and his own inexperience, simply made up his stories and well as faking datelines.
I agree, these are each entirely different problems that journalists have to face and avoid as professionals.
And you clearly don't understand "IP."
Karma is never "the Karma" it is always just karma. And Bring it On, not originally from George Bush, but from a Kirsten Dunst movie.
Nice one there slappy.
Talk about missing the point. The point was given enough thrust even a brick can fly, but that doesn't mean you want a flight of bricks. Efficiency is important. However, Windows can be part of a cluster, it just isn't as efficient as UNIX or Linux.
So you say that I sound like I'm 12 because I don't like Macs, then you proceed to spew out this nonesense as if it's any better
I didn't call you 12 because you don't like Macs, I called you 12 because you--for all intensive purposes--called Mac users faggy art students. I think that's pretty immature. And I was offering an opinion, hence IMHO; we can get into the specific and numerous reasons Windows sucks and you can defend it all you want. But, that wasn't really my point.
Of course. When you don't agree with the simple truth, make it sound like the truth is actually in your favor, but in an overly-complicated, totally abstract, completely unprobable way.
History is always complicated, but I will direct you to daringfireball.netfor succint history of the reasons the Macintosh was not accepted into businesses and in large numbers by home users. And there are lots of business histories that tell the story even better. And yeah, history is complex, not the simple dipole you need it to be; deal with it.
I was into computers long before my parents were...
Fine, cheap shot, but your attitude needs work, your posts are all acerbic attacks supporting Windows. Fine, you like Windows, especially XP--that's great--but don't just attack other people calling them fags, sheep, etc. because they disagree with you. Grow up.
'Nuff said.