I suspect the ability to optimize/fix anything they want with the compiler is a needed feature for them. They can do the same thing with gcc? Not really as it takes a major act of blood sacrifice to change things with gcc.
Outdated apps in what sense? They were good enough in 2017, why will they suddenly become not good enough in 2018?
First, you're implying that 2017 was that last time some of these apps were updated. As this report notes, its been happening for years with WP apps. In some cases, apps that haven't been updated in years are the only ones available. Second, for those apps that have been updated recently does not mean that they have the latest and greatest features on par with other versions. Take for example this Twitter for WP comment.
It takes way too long for this app to catch up to Twitter's new features. As of the date of this review (11/13/17), it still does not support 280-character tweets, even though the website and Twitter apps for other platforms have supported the longer tweets for about a week. Also, it's been over a year and a half since Twitter introduced the ability to describe pictures to the visually impaired, yet the Twitter app for Windows still can't do this.
And that's if the app is bug free. As many WP users have noted, popular apps are crashing all the time because the developers barely update them to fix them. For example, Facebook has a great deal of instability and bugginess. And that's a Facebook which can afford decent programmers. It seems to that Facebook doesn't care about WP users or they can't get it right with their billions of dollars. I would guess it's more that WP users aren't enough for them to care.
Now they can just write in Vulkan and it is supported everywhere rather than having to write a special version just for Apple. If you're only targeting Apple then sure, write in Metal but if not then write in Vulkan.
The problem is that Vulkan, for now, isn't supported by Apple. So the Khronos Group is fully responsible for it working on all versions of iPhone for all versions of iOS. Then there are optimization issues which might occur on iOS as it might "run" but not be great which is not something you want in a graphics API. While you can write in Vulkan it may or may not work well on an iOS device especially in the beginning which you will probably need to keep a Metal version for a while. Also bear in mind that Apple is not halting development on iOS or hardware or Metal.
We just outfitted our office with new Lumia 950 XL Windows 10 phones.
Congrats? But that doesn't address the problem. If no new apps are coming on Windows phone and developers are abandoning current apps, what apps will your coworkers use? Outdated ones. Also your coworkers will probably not be getting any new Windows 11 phones in the future or newer hardware for the Windows 10. It's would be the same as if your office got new Blackberry phones.
It's still the preferred device for 30-40y/o's
At your work maybe but that does not represent worldwide or the US. 30-40 year olds don't have as high ownership as younger generations but they still have almost 90% in the US. Yet Windows Phone represents about 1% of the US marketshare. If it was the "preferred" device for 30-40 year olds in the US, that number would be much, much higher.
You could just read my second sentence, you know. Cluster 1 will always need some insulin, but can cut their needs substantially. Cluster 2 might not, if they can get their insulin demand below the level that their pancreas can supply. And that's primarily determined by diet.
This is what you wrote:
Curiously enough, all forms of diabetes are amenable to at least partial treatment with one simple mechanism: stop eating sugar and and easily-digested starches. Some will require supplemental insulin, of course, but that small step will work wonders even for them.
So let me rephrase your wording so you understand how silly you sound:
Curiously enough, all forms of cancer are amenable to at least partial treatment with one simple mechanism: stop eating sugar and and easily-digested starches. Some will require supplemental chemotherapy, of course, but that small step will work wonders even for them.
Also let me edit your words to be accurate:
Cluster 1 will always need some^H^H^H^H insulin for the rest of their lives regardless of diet. Cluster 2 might not^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H is not caused by autoimmune disease as in Cluster 1 but might need insulin for the rest of their lives regardless of diet. The only difference between Cluster 1 and 2 is how new forms of treatment might be addressed in the future. For cluster 1, treating autoimmune disease is different than Cluster 2 where something else is causing the deficiency. Cluster 2 has more potential for treatment as it is not as well understood.
Because Microsoft rarely does this, especially when compared against other companies in the consumer electronics industry
Do you remember the previous phone attempt by MS called the Kin that didn't last 3 months? If we stick to phones specifically, Windows Phone 7 lasted 3 years; however, some Windows Phones on 7 could not be upgraded to 8 so MS definitely abandoned those consumer. With Windows 8 and then 8.1, the same thing happened where consumers couldn't update their phones to newer versions. While you can say Apple does the same thing, you'd be stretching the truth as up until this year, the iPhone 5 got 4 new versions of iOS (6 -> 10).
Android as an OS has long term support. Manufacturers that make the phones have mixed track records on how long your phone is supported.
It's a dead platform because you couldn't get the tools you needed to get stuff done? Well than you for your decision, King Greer. Since my Windows Phone does everything I need, do I have to give it up, too? May I keep using it, even though you've designated it to be a "DEAD PLATFORM"?
No it's a dead platform because fewer and fewer new apps are being made for it as noted even by MS. It's a dead platform because current app developers are abandoning Windows Phone to focus on Android and iPhone which the vast majority of their customers are using. It's a dead platform because MS said it will no longer focus on new features or hardware but will still provide security updates and patches. If you want to keep using your phone, go ahead. But the day is coming soon where you won't be able to get new hardware or features from MS at the same time your app developers stops updating your favorite apps and no new apps can replace them.
In order to get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has to show why they're likely to win, and doesn't have to show evidence.
No, in order to grant a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must show without any evidence that they will win among other things not that there isn't a case to be decided. If there is any doubt (like there are questions to be addressed) the court cannot grant the motion. Now if the court grants Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice, that would closer to them winning. But if the court does not grant Redbox's motion, that doesn't mean the Redbox has lost either. It still means the court still has to decide.
This means that the plaintiff explains what they think the defendant did, and why it's illegal. The plaintiff also has to say why not getting a preliminary injunction would harm the plaintiff, but that doesn't appear to be why the injunction was not granted.
Not according to
Therefore, the judge ruled that Disney has no case.
If that were true then the judge would have granted Redbox's motion to dismiss but he didn't.
Not every refusal to grant a preliminary injunction means that the case is decided. If Disney had failed to show some sort of irreparable harm if there was no injunction, for example, the injunction would not be granted, and the trial would proceed.
That is a separate . At this point the only harm that Redbox is doing if they lose is that they owe Disney money. Disney has failed to show any harm besides that.
all forms of diabetes are amenable to at least partial treatment with one simple mechanism: stop eating sugar and and easily-digested starches
I know that reading the whole article might be too much for you but reading the summary seems to be as well. The summary says this:
Cluster 1 - severe autoimmune diabetes is broadly the same as the classical type 1 -- it hit people when they were young, seemingly healthy and an immune disease left them unable to produce insulin
Cluster 2 - severe insulin-deficient diabetes patients initially looked very similar to those in cluster 1 -- they were young, had a healthy weight and struggled to make insulin, but the immune system was not at fault
"Metal" was the new standard that Apple was trying to push, "Vulkan" is the actual standard that got adopted by other people.
When has Apple "pushed" Metal as a standard? In June 2014, Apple released beta versions as a low level graphics API to their iOS devices. Later macOS was added. It was never released as a standard for any other system.
This means that people no longer need to go through the pointless process of converting their Vulkan code into Metal.
"No longer" isn't quite accurate because just because a system supports more than one standard does not mean that all work stops on one of the standards. For example, game developers didn't stop coding Direct X because the game also supported OpenGL. Indeed, it means that developers may have to code in two different APIs now.
So you've read the entire 26 page order [documentcloud.org], then? You know, as I suggested you do when Disney loses [slashdot.org]. The judge ruled that Redbox can do what they're doing, which I said would happen, and he did so for the very same reasons I said he'd do so. By any reasonable definition of the word "right" as it applies in this context, I was right.
You do understand what a preliminary injunction is, right? What part of the case has the court decided at this point? No merits of the case has been decided. Therefore you cannot be right about anything as nothing has been decided about the actual case. You also know that a preliminary injunction has different criteria than the actual court case, right? You do understand that both sides can settle, right? You do understand that years of appeals may be ahead, right? No, you don't seem to understand any of that. These are facts you seem to ignore every time.
The judge hasn't ruled yet but has certainly indicated how he intends to rule in this matter. This is the court's way of telling Disney they've lost before the trial even begins.
No. Again, you don't seem to understand that a preliminary injunction != the case. The judge has to decide whether WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED would the plaintiff will win on legal arguments alone to rule. At this point, discovery has not happened and no evidence has been submitted for the judge. Also do you know that since 2008, District Courts have stricter guidelines for ruling for preliminary injunctions due to a SCOTUS ruling? You probably can't name the relevant case, can you?
Another instance of the judge telling them they've lost before the trial even begins.
Again, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED by either side to the court and no discovery has happened. What the court says is that based on oral arguments, they cannot rule in favor of Disney. What you are saying is as ludicrous as saying if Redbox fails to win the motion to dismiss next, then Redbox automatically loses. No that's not how lawsuits work.
Another point I raised back in December that you claimed had already been decided in previous cases. Guess what: the judge just said it hasn't been decided.
No. What you stated (and was emphatically wrong) was that a contract is unenforceable merely because it is shrink-wrapped. What the judge writes clearly but you seem to ignore is that "significant questions remain about the validity and enforceability of those restrictions." The judge is clearly saying the terms might not be enforceable. Nowhere does he say: Shrink-wrapped==unenforceable. Are you going to deny that's what you wrote and was wrong about?
As I said back in December, though, we'll have to wait for the trial decision (or the settlement, though Redbox would be fools to settle given how weak the Judge just told Disney their case is) to find out which of us was truly right; but all indications at this point are that you were wrong, my friend.
And this isn't the trial decision. Not even close.
I would also like to point out that I find it curious that you left me alone for almost three months after I handed you what I believed to be a prime example of a lie, told about you nonetheless. Was there, perhaps, some truth in what I said back then.
No I see you're back to lying about what you wrote. You clearly wrote Shrinkwrapped==unenforceable and you were proven wrong by me and someone else. Now three months later you say you were right about that. Not even close.
Well you do seem to have a disregard for facts. Disney did not lose the case; they lost a motion for preliminary injunction to stop Redbox from continuing to sell the codes. Redbox or Disney can still lose the suit with a settlement as a possibility. Next up is Redbox's motion to dismiss. Of course if either side wins the court case, there probably will be years of appeals. So you claiming that somehow you're "right" at this point in time is like claiming you've won a 100m dash because you thought about putting on your running shoes before your competitors.
Except for facts that you always seem to disregard. Disney did not lose the case; they lost a motion for preliminary injunction to stop Redbox from continuing to sell the codes. Redbox or Disney can still lose the suit with a settlement as a possibility. Next up is Redbox's motion to dismiss. Of course if either side wins the court case, there probably will be years of appeals. So you claiming that somehow you're "right" at this point in time is like claiming you've won a 100m dash because you put on your running shoes before your competitors.
No. Unlike what the title implies, Disney did not lose the case. Disney lost its motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Redbox from selling the codes. Next, the court has to address Redbox's motion to dismiss. If Disney loses that one, then they are closer to losing the case setting some precedent. If Disney wins, then there is still a court case to go through.
All that is necessary is to boil the metal and then spray it into whatever shape makes you happy.
The problem is not that you can't heat ore. The problem with processing ore is separating out the impurities. In the exact example, chopping, hammering, smelting are ways here on Earth to remove impurities from metals like iron. They rely on the fact that gravity is assumed. Can you devise other processes which do they same thing but do not rely on gravity, yes. But you can't rely on those processes.
Only if you don't bother reading the article or the summary. He's clearly talking about things like finance and sales. In that sense, Apple has never had a bad financial year when he's been CEO. Even though they had a sales decline in FY2016, they still booked $215B in sales which was less than the $233B FY2015 and then rebounded with $229 for FY 2017. They were, of course, very profitable all those years. PR and technology wise you can argue all you want.
The Mond process relies on putting impure nickel through with heated carbon monoxide gas. Nickel tetra carbonyl becomes a liquid not a gas. Then the liquid is further heated to separate CO from Nickel. Heating a liquid is easy on Earth as you heat the bottom of the vessel. How do you heat a liquid/gas mixture in zero G? A possible way of doing it is to cool the liquid to 1F, extract the solid then heat the solid. However that requires a lot more steps and energy. Would it be practical energy wise?
What? Who told you that? You're off your nut. For example, the commonest way to cut large pieces of metal for industrial purposes today is the band saw.
Where in my post did I say anything about the most common way to cut metal. What I did say specifically is that in processing ore as the OP said "chop it up, hammer it out, or melt it down and cast/print with it" here on Earth requires gravity. Please show how none of those processes on Earth depends on gravity.
That in no way requires gravity. Even when the systems currently use gravity, there's no reason why they have to. For example, a hydraulic system might use gravity on earth to settle the contents of a return tank
A hydraulic system that handles molten metals. Sure that's very practical in zero G.
But in space, you might use a low-pressure accumulator in place of the tank, to force the fluid into the pump inlet.
Again for fluids at room temperature it's not a problem. We are talking about molten metals here.
. Industrial hammering processes use far more force than is provided by gravity; they are done with steam, or hydraulic force. Gravity is old hat, nobody has time to wait for hammers to fall.
How would hydraulics work in space especially with something like steam? There's a reason the ISS does not use steam power to drive any processes.
The most obvious solution is to not let humans control their own flying vehicles anywhere they might cause a problem. You can fly over water, or over a desert, but you're not going to be allowed to fly over populated areas without an actual pilot's license.
That would require AIs to be extremely infallible. It's on the level of sci-fi FTL drives but not seemingly practical anytime soon.
It's basic accounting. Earnings and revenue definitions are strict. In this case, Apple has the money already as cash; thus it is not earnings. Now if Apple had purchased and sold anything at a profit with the money, that's considered earnings.
They were already counted as earnings especially since they've been accumulating over a decade. Apple already had the money before this quarter; it's just parked overseas thus it's not new earnings for the quarter, year. To move the money to the US before this year would have accrued a large loss in tax. They still accrue a smaller loss but it will not be the hefty tax that they would have had. Taxes would affect net income; they don't change the numbers reported as earnings or revenue.
I stand by the statement that their earnings increase is mainly a result of their sweet tax cut and also the statement that the iPhone sales number are much lower than expected.
The bulk of the tax cut allows Apple to move their cash from overseas accounts into the US with fewer tax penalties. This will save Apple approximately $47B however none of that can be credited towards earnings. It is counted towards their cash assets.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the ability to optimize/fix anything they want with the compiler is a needed feature for them. They can do the same thing with gcc? Not really as it takes a major act of blood sacrifice to change things with gcc.
Outdated apps in what sense? They were good enough in 2017, why will they suddenly become not good enough in 2018?
First, you're implying that 2017 was that last time some of these apps were updated. As this report notes, its been happening for years with WP apps. In some cases, apps that haven't been updated in years are the only ones available. Second, for those apps that have been updated recently does not mean that they have the latest and greatest features on par with other versions. Take for example this Twitter for WP comment.
It takes way too long for this app to catch up to Twitter's new features. As of the date of this review (11/13/17), it still does not support 280-character tweets, even though the website and Twitter apps for other platforms have supported the longer tweets for about a week. Also, it's been over a year and a half since Twitter introduced the ability to describe pictures to the visually impaired, yet the Twitter app for Windows still can't do this.
And that's if the app is bug free. As many WP users have noted, popular apps are crashing all the time because the developers barely update them to fix them. For example, Facebook has a great deal of instability and bugginess. And that's a Facebook which can afford decent programmers. It seems to that Facebook doesn't care about WP users or they can't get it right with their billions of dollars. I would guess it's more that WP users aren't enough for them to care.
Now they can just write in Vulkan and it is supported everywhere rather than having to write a special version just for Apple. If you're only targeting Apple then sure, write in Metal but if not then write in Vulkan.
The problem is that Vulkan, for now, isn't supported by Apple. So the Khronos Group is fully responsible for it working on all versions of iPhone for all versions of iOS. Then there are optimization issues which might occur on iOS as it might "run" but not be great which is not something you want in a graphics API. While you can write in Vulkan it may or may not work well on an iOS device especially in the beginning which you will probably need to keep a Metal version for a while. Also bear in mind that Apple is not halting development on iOS or hardware or Metal.
We just outfitted our office with new Lumia 950 XL Windows 10 phones.
Congrats? But that doesn't address the problem. If no new apps are coming on Windows phone and developers are abandoning current apps, what apps will your coworkers use? Outdated ones. Also your coworkers will probably not be getting any new Windows 11 phones in the future or newer hardware for the Windows 10. It's would be the same as if your office got new Blackberry phones.
It's still the preferred device for 30-40y/o's
At your work maybe but that does not represent worldwide or the US. 30-40 year olds don't have as high ownership as younger generations but they still have almost 90% in the US. Yet Windows Phone represents about 1% of the US marketshare. If it was the "preferred" device for 30-40 year olds in the US, that number would be much, much higher.
Remember this news when Microsoft first launched Windows Phone by staging a mock funeral for the iPhone?
You could just read my second sentence, you know. Cluster 1 will always need some insulin, but can cut their needs substantially. Cluster 2 might not, if they can get their insulin demand below the level that their pancreas can supply. And that's primarily determined by diet.
This is what you wrote:
Curiously enough, all forms of diabetes are amenable to at least partial treatment with one simple mechanism: stop eating sugar and and easily-digested starches. Some will require supplemental insulin, of course, but that small step will work wonders even for them.
So let me rephrase your wording so you understand how silly you sound:
Curiously enough, all forms of cancer are amenable to at least partial treatment with one simple mechanism: stop eating sugar and and easily-digested starches. Some will require supplemental chemotherapy, of course, but that small step will work wonders even for them.
Also let me edit your words to be accurate:
Cluster 1 will always need some^H^H^H^H insulin for the rest of their lives regardless of diet. Cluster 2 might not^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H is not caused by autoimmune disease as in Cluster 1 but might need insulin for the rest of their lives regardless of diet. The only difference between Cluster 1 and 2 is how new forms of treatment might be addressed in the future. For cluster 1, treating autoimmune disease is different than Cluster 2 where something else is causing the deficiency. Cluster 2 has more potential for treatment as it is not as well understood.
Because Microsoft rarely does this, especially when compared against other companies in the consumer electronics industry
Do you remember the previous phone attempt by MS called the Kin that didn't last 3 months? If we stick to phones specifically, Windows Phone 7 lasted 3 years; however, some Windows Phones on 7 could not be upgraded to 8 so MS definitely abandoned those consumer. With Windows 8 and then 8.1, the same thing happened where consumers couldn't update their phones to newer versions. While you can say Apple does the same thing, you'd be stretching the truth as up until this year, the iPhone 5 got 4 new versions of iOS (6 -> 10).
Android as an OS has long term support. Manufacturers that make the phones have mixed track records on how long your phone is supported.
It's a dead platform because you couldn't get the tools you needed to get stuff done? Well than you for your decision, King Greer. Since my Windows Phone does everything I need, do I have to give it up, too? May I keep using it, even though you've designated it to be a "DEAD PLATFORM"?
No it's a dead platform because fewer and fewer new apps are being made for it as noted even by MS. It's a dead platform because current app developers are abandoning Windows Phone to focus on Android and iPhone which the vast majority of their customers are using. It's a dead platform because MS said it will no longer focus on new features or hardware but will still provide security updates and patches. If you want to keep using your phone, go ahead. But the day is coming soon where you won't be able to get new hardware or features from MS at the same time your app developers stops updating your favorite apps and no new apps can replace them.
In order to get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has to show why they're likely to win, and doesn't have to show evidence.
No, in order to grant a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must show without any evidence that they will win among other things not that there isn't a case to be decided. If there is any doubt (like there are questions to be addressed) the court cannot grant the motion. Now if the court grants Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice, that would closer to them winning. But if the court does not grant Redbox's motion, that doesn't mean the Redbox has lost either. It still means the court still has to decide.
This means that the plaintiff explains what they think the defendant did, and why it's illegal. The plaintiff also has to say why not getting a preliminary injunction would harm the plaintiff, but that doesn't appear to be why the injunction was not granted.
Not according to
Therefore, the judge ruled that Disney has no case.
If that were true then the judge would have granted Redbox's motion to dismiss but he didn't.
Not every refusal to grant a preliminary injunction means that the case is decided. If Disney had failed to show some sort of irreparable harm if there was no injunction, for example, the injunction would not be granted, and the trial would proceed.
That is a separate . At this point the only harm that Redbox is doing if they lose is that they owe Disney money. Disney has failed to show any harm besides that.
all forms of diabetes are amenable to at least partial treatment with one simple mechanism: stop eating sugar and and easily-digested starches
I know that reading the whole article might be too much for you but reading the summary seems to be as well. The summary says this:
Cluster 1 - severe autoimmune diabetes is broadly the same as the classical type 1 -- it hit people when they were young, seemingly healthy and an immune disease left them unable to produce insulin
Cluster 2 - severe insulin-deficient diabetes patients initially looked very similar to those in cluster 1 -- they were young, had a healthy weight and struggled to make insulin, but the immune system was not at fault
"Metal" was the new standard that Apple was trying to push, "Vulkan" is the actual standard that got adopted by other people.
When has Apple "pushed" Metal as a standard? In June 2014, Apple released beta versions as a low level graphics API to their iOS devices. Later macOS was added. It was never released as a standard for any other system.
This means that people no longer need to go through the pointless process of converting their Vulkan code into Metal.
"No longer" isn't quite accurate because just because a system supports more than one standard does not mean that all work stops on one of the standards. For example, game developers didn't stop coding Direct X because the game also supported OpenGL. Indeed, it means that developers may have to code in two different APIs now.
No I want to make sure read facts as you seem to always ignore them. Double-posting might help but I don't you'll ever admit you are wrong.
You do know that was my post right? For some reason, slashdot said the post didn't go through.
So you've read the entire 26 page order [documentcloud.org], then? You know, as I suggested you do when Disney loses [slashdot.org]. The judge ruled that Redbox can do what they're doing, which I said would happen, and he did so for the very same reasons I said he'd do so. By any reasonable definition of the word "right" as it applies in this context, I was right.
You do understand what a preliminary injunction is, right? What part of the case has the court decided at this point? No merits of the case has been decided. Therefore you cannot be right about anything as nothing has been decided about the actual case. You also know that a preliminary injunction has different criteria than the actual court case, right? You do understand that both sides can settle, right? You do understand that years of appeals may be ahead, right? No, you don't seem to understand any of that. These are facts you seem to ignore every time.
The judge hasn't ruled yet but has certainly indicated how he intends to rule in this matter. This is the court's way of telling Disney they've lost before the trial even begins.
No. Again, you don't seem to understand that a preliminary injunction != the case. The judge has to decide whether WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED would the plaintiff will win on legal arguments alone to rule. At this point, discovery has not happened and no evidence has been submitted for the judge. Also do you know that since 2008, District Courts have stricter guidelines for ruling for preliminary injunctions due to a SCOTUS ruling? You probably can't name the relevant case, can you?
Another instance of the judge telling them they've lost before the trial even begins.
Again, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED by either side to the court and no discovery has happened. What the court says is that based on oral arguments, they cannot rule in favor of Disney. What you are saying is as ludicrous as saying if Redbox fails to win the motion to dismiss next, then Redbox automatically loses. No that's not how lawsuits work.
Another point I raised back in December that you claimed had already been decided in previous cases. Guess what: the judge just said it hasn't been decided.
No. What you stated (and was emphatically wrong) was that a contract is unenforceable merely because it is shrink-wrapped. What the judge writes clearly but you seem to ignore is that "significant questions remain about the validity and enforceability of those restrictions." The judge is clearly saying the terms might not be enforceable. Nowhere does he say: Shrink-wrapped==unenforceable. Are you going to deny that's what you wrote and was wrong about?
As I said back in December, though, we'll have to wait for the trial decision (or the settlement, though Redbox would be fools to settle given how weak the Judge just told Disney their case is) to find out which of us was truly right; but all indications at this point are that you were wrong, my friend.
And this isn't the trial decision. Not even close.
I would also like to point out that I find it curious that you left me alone for almost three months after I handed you what I believed to be a prime example of a lie, told about you nonetheless. Was there, perhaps, some truth in what I said back then.
No I see you're back to lying about what you wrote. You clearly wrote Shrinkwrapped==unenforceable and you were proven wrong by me and someone else. Now three months later you say you were right about that. Not even close.
Well you do seem to have a disregard for facts. Disney did not lose the case; they lost a motion for preliminary injunction to stop Redbox from continuing to sell the codes. Redbox or Disney can still lose the suit with a settlement as a possibility. Next up is Redbox's motion to dismiss. Of course if either side wins the court case, there probably will be years of appeals. So you claiming that somehow you're "right" at this point in time is like claiming you've won a 100m dash because you thought about putting on your running shoes before your competitors.
Except for facts that you always seem to disregard. Disney did not lose the case; they lost a motion for preliminary injunction to stop Redbox from continuing to sell the codes. Redbox or Disney can still lose the suit with a settlement as a possibility. Next up is Redbox's motion to dismiss. Of course if either side wins the court case, there probably will be years of appeals. So you claiming that somehow you're "right" at this point in time is like claiming you've won a 100m dash because you put on your running shoes before your competitors.
No. Unlike what the title implies, Disney did not lose the case. Disney lost its motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Redbox from selling the codes. Next, the court has to address Redbox's motion to dismiss. If Disney loses that one, then they are closer to losing the case setting some precedent. If Disney wins, then there is still a court case to go through.
All that is necessary is to boil the metal and then spray it into whatever shape makes you happy.
The problem is not that you can't heat ore. The problem with processing ore is separating out the impurities. In the exact example, chopping, hammering, smelting are ways here on Earth to remove impurities from metals like iron. They rely on the fact that gravity is assumed. Can you devise other processes which do they same thing but do not rely on gravity, yes. But you can't rely on those processes.
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
Only if you don't bother reading the article or the summary. He's clearly talking about things like finance and sales. In that sense, Apple has never had a bad financial year when he's been CEO. Even though they had a sales decline in FY2016, they still booked $215B in sales which was less than the $233B FY2015 and then rebounded with $229 for FY 2017. They were, of course, very profitable all those years. PR and technology wise you can argue all you want.
The Mond process relies on putting impure nickel through with heated carbon monoxide gas. Nickel tetra carbonyl becomes a liquid not a gas. Then the liquid is further heated to separate CO from Nickel. Heating a liquid is easy on Earth as you heat the bottom of the vessel. How do you heat a liquid/gas mixture in zero G? A possible way of doing it is to cool the liquid to 1F, extract the solid then heat the solid. However that requires a lot more steps and energy. Would it be practical energy wise?
What? Who told you that? You're off your nut. For example, the commonest way to cut large pieces of metal for industrial purposes today is the band saw.
Where in my post did I say anything about the most common way to cut metal. What I did say specifically is that in processing ore as the OP said "chop it up, hammer it out, or melt it down and cast/print with it" here on Earth requires gravity. Please show how none of those processes on Earth depends on gravity.
That in no way requires gravity. Even when the systems currently use gravity, there's no reason why they have to. For example, a hydraulic system might use gravity on earth to settle the contents of a return tank
A hydraulic system that handles molten metals. Sure that's very practical in zero G.
But in space, you might use a low-pressure accumulator in place of the tank, to force the fluid into the pump inlet.
Again for fluids at room temperature it's not a problem. We are talking about molten metals here.
. Industrial hammering processes use far more force than is provided by gravity; they are done with steam, or hydraulic force. Gravity is old hat, nobody has time to wait for hammers to fall.
How would hydraulics work in space especially with something like steam? There's a reason the ISS does not use steam power to drive any processes.
The most obvious solution is to not let humans control their own flying vehicles anywhere they might cause a problem. You can fly over water, or over a desert, but you're not going to be allowed to fly over populated areas without an actual pilot's license.
That would require AIs to be extremely infallible. It's on the level of sci-fi FTL drives but not seemingly practical anytime soon.
It's basic accounting. Earnings and revenue definitions are strict. In this case, Apple has the money already as cash; thus it is not earnings. Now if Apple had purchased and sold anything at a profit with the money, that's considered earnings.
They were already counted as earnings especially since they've been accumulating over a decade. Apple already had the money before this quarter; it's just parked overseas thus it's not new earnings for the quarter, year. To move the money to the US before this year would have accrued a large loss in tax. They still accrue a smaller loss but it will not be the hefty tax that they would have had. Taxes would affect net income; they don't change the numbers reported as earnings or revenue.
I stand by the statement that their earnings increase is mainly a result of their sweet tax cut and also the statement that the iPhone sales number are much lower than expected.
The bulk of the tax cut allows Apple to move their cash from overseas accounts into the US with fewer tax penalties. This will save Apple approximately $47B however none of that can be credited towards earnings. It is counted towards their cash assets.