The thing about UFOs is that the first word is "unidentified". If you don't know what an object is, and you see it in the sky, you have no way of knowing how big it is or how far away it is, or how fast it is moving. Lacking this information leads to further uncertainties as to the identity of the object.
I've seen objects in the night sky that I couldn't identify. I'm sure most people who watch the sky have. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be able to identify them i I had more information.
I am referring to the nexus which was designed to avoid Apple's design patents. After reading your article, I am doubting that we've seen the last of this kind of activity from samsung.
Apple makes computers from more expensive components because they are a product company and they don't compromise on design in order to hit the lower price points. Some people get this, and they buy macs and don't see the as overpriced. Other people think a fancy 27" monitor is superfluous and unnecessary. That's why you see them compare the price of a PC with a 24" el-cheapo monitor to an iMac with a much nicer 27" display.
Apple products are for people who are value conscious. Cost conscious penny-pinchers need not concern themselves with Apple products. They will always be able to find another "comparable" product that costs less and is good enough.
But the process is not a result of global warming, he said.
Does it bother anyone else that they had to say this? It's like doing a report on spring runoff and pointing out that it's not a result global warming. Are people really that ignorant of how natural processes work?
Agreed. After reading the biography, I can see that Steve Jobs wasn't worried that these divices would cost him money. He was upset because he felt they were just cheap knock-offs of his own products.
I hate hearing about how Apple doesn't innovate because "there were touch screen phones before the iPhone". Yes, their were, but they all sucked. They were harder to use than keypad phone. Then the iPhone comes out and it's not long before Google releases Android. How could anyone believe that Android is not just a wholesale rip-off of iOS?! It's just a shitty copy of a software product that Apple made first, and made better. If I was Steve Jobs, I'd be pissed about it too.
And Samsung has obviously been designing it's products to look like the iPhone and the iPad. Why do they do that? They just want to ride Apple's coattails to success, rather than do the work of developing a unique product for themselves. Thank god they've finally gotten the message and are now making phones that actually don't look like knock-off iPhones.
and several of which were better than Siri, at least in categories the register tested.
Uh no. . . Did you even read the article you linked to?!
So, are any of the Android apps better than Siri? No. Apple’s offering is not better by miles, but it is still the best and benefits from excellent presentation and seamless integration with all of the iPhone’s native apps. That said, Siri is still very, very far from perfect, and the Android competition can do all the things I’d trust a digital assistant to do nearly as well. So Siri is certainly not a compelling reason to jump ship to iOS.
The question remains: What keeps us from building them?
If you are referring to the US as us, I'd assume that the thing stopping us from building them is the same that is stopping us from building any other kind of nuclear reactor. Such projects lack the popular support necessary to gain needed subsidies and permits for construction.
Actually, all the contracts I've seen only require you to keep the voice plan. You could turn off data and texting if you wanted to. This will send you back to the '90s, but it's still an option.
Apple makes big bucks selling iPhones, and their primary source of income is repeat customers. There is no way they would make more money by leaving such a loophole open. Such a move would alienate too many customers.
What caused the backup systems to fail was entirely predictable (though very low probability of occurrence) and the plant was left exposed and vulnerable to this risk.
Based on the geologic record of the site, and our understanding of plate tectonics, the probability of this event happening at some point in time was somewhere around 100%. The frequency of such events is such that one would be expected every few hundred years. If the plant is expected to operate for 20-30 years, this translates to a lifetime probability of 10% or so. That is a high probability, given such an event would definitely destroy the plant.
I think you've underestimated the cost of these machines at least a little. Plus currently you wouldn't be able to simply walk through. It's important that you are (generally) immobile while you pass slowly through the imager. But, of course, that isn't to say such a thing couldn't be done in the future.
It's true that the cost is artificially inflated. This is true of the medical industry in general, and it's going to have to stop before there can be any significant improvements in the quality of healthcare.
You can, however, tell if cancer has metastasized or not. You can see whether or not it is spreading.
Most people are unreasonably afraid of dying. Pathologically afraid, really. People need to accept that the question is how you're going live, not whether you're going to die.
People that have lethal cancer can be treated nevertheless.
If the cancer kills you anyway, then you went through a whole lot of pain and trouble for nothing. I'd rather not be put through all that for nothing.
how do you know if a persons cancer will be lethal or not?
You wait until they've died from it. Then you mark in your notes that the cancer was lethal. Pretty simple really. But only useful for generating statistics.
how can you tell if a cancer will grow and kill or not?
Again, you wait until they die, then you look and see if the cancer killed them, or if it was something else. Again, only really useful for generating statistics.
So... what kind of idiot wrote that pretentious article
Some people know not to argue with the truth. That's the kind of person who would write this article. You can live your life however you want.
Another approach is to find an imaging technique that is cheap and harmless enough that you could image someone's whole body every week. Then you could compare week to week to monitor growth and spread of the tumors, and only target tumors that are fast growing, or persist beyond a certain threshold size.
If what you say is technically true, but what you are intending people to hear is false, you are lying to them.
Think about it this way. Would the conclusion that pot should be prohibited logically flow from the argument that it is "associated with addiction?" No, people would find that argument nonsensical. It would be like arguing you would prohibit postage scales because they are "associated with" cocaine distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about UFOs is that the first word is "unidentified". If you don't know what an object is, and you see it in the sky, you have no way of knowing how big it is or how far away it is, or how fast it is moving. Lacking this information leads to further uncertainties as to the identity of the object.
I've seen objects in the night sky that I couldn't identify. I'm sure most people who watch the sky have. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be able to identify them i I had more information.
I am referring to the nexus which was designed to avoid Apple's design patents. After reading your article, I am doubting that we've seen the last of this kind of activity from samsung.
The student isn't paid to learn, the teacher is paid to teach. You have it backwards.
Apparently many people are not aware that snow melts every spring. That was my bad.
Apple makes computers from more expensive components because they are a product company and they don't compromise on design in order to hit the lower price points. Some people get this, and they buy macs and don't see the as overpriced. Other people think a fancy 27" monitor is superfluous and unnecessary. That's why you see them compare the price of a PC with a 24" el-cheapo monitor to an iMac with a much nicer 27" display.
Apple products are for people who are value conscious. Cost conscious penny-pinchers need not concern themselves with Apple products. They will always be able to find another "comparable" product that costs less and is good enough.
Does it bother anyone else that they had to say this? It's like doing a report on spring runoff and pointing out that it's not a result global warming. Are people really that ignorant of how natural processes work?
Agreed. After reading the biography, I can see that Steve Jobs wasn't worried that these divices would cost him money. He was upset because he felt they were just cheap knock-offs of his own products.
I hate hearing about how Apple doesn't innovate because "there were touch screen phones before the iPhone". Yes, their were, but they all sucked. They were harder to use than keypad phone. Then the iPhone comes out and it's not long before Google releases Android. How could anyone believe that Android is not just a wholesale rip-off of iOS?! It's just a shitty copy of a software product that Apple made first, and made better. If I was Steve Jobs, I'd be pissed about it too.
And Samsung has obviously been designing it's products to look like the iPhone and the iPad. Why do they do that? They just want to ride Apple's coattails to success, rather than do the work of developing a unique product for themselves. Thank god they've finally gotten the message and are now making phones that actually don't look like knock-off iPhones.
Apple filed a complaint that lead to criminal charges. Criminal prosecution is always handled by the state.
Uh no. . . Did you even read the article you linked to?!
If you are referring to the US as us, I'd assume that the thing stopping us from building them is the same that is stopping us from building any other kind of nuclear reactor. Such projects lack the popular support necessary to gain needed subsidies and permits for construction.
Actually, all the contracts I've seen only require you to keep the voice plan. You could turn off data and texting if you wanted to. This will send you back to the '90s, but it's still an option.
Apple makes big bucks selling iPhones, and their primary source of income is repeat customers. There is no way they would make more money by leaving such a loophole open. Such a move would alienate too many customers.
I just thought I'd point thisout.
At the present rate, 30-40 years. But that that could change dramatically depending on what they decide to do with aging nuclear power stations.
Simply do not build cities in locations which are susceptible to tsunamis.
Based on the geologic record of the site, and our understanding of plate tectonics, the probability of this event happening at some point in time was somewhere around 100%. The frequency of such events is such that one would be expected every few hundred years. If the plant is expected to operate for 20-30 years, this translates to a lifetime probability of 10% or so. That is a high probability, given such an event would definitely destroy the plant.
I think you've underestimated the cost of these machines at least a little. Plus currently you wouldn't be able to simply walk through. It's important that you are (generally) immobile while you pass slowly through the imager. But, of course, that isn't to say such a thing couldn't be done in the future.
It's true that the cost is artificially inflated. This is true of the medical industry in general, and it's going to have to stop before there can be any significant improvements in the quality of healthcare.
I would presume this would be done in software, with subsequent analysis by a doctor only if certain screening criteria are met.
You can, however, tell if cancer has metastasized or not. You can see whether or not it is spreading.
Most people are unreasonably afraid of dying. Pathologically afraid, really. People need to accept that the question is how you're going live, not whether you're going to die.
Depends what your definition of harmless is I suppose.
If the cancer kills you anyway, then you went through a whole lot of pain and trouble for nothing. I'd rather not be put through all that for nothing.
You wait until they've died from it. Then you mark in your notes that the cancer was lethal. Pretty simple really. But only useful for generating statistics.
Again, you wait until they die, then you look and see if the cancer killed them, or if it was something else. Again, only really useful for generating statistics.
Some people know not to argue with the truth. That's the kind of person who would write this article. You can live your life however you want.
Another approach is to find an imaging technique that is cheap and harmless enough that you could image someone's whole body every week. Then you could compare week to week to monitor growth and spread of the tumors, and only target tumors that are fast growing, or persist beyond a certain threshold size.
You have an overly narrow definition of lying.
If what you say is technically true, but what you are intending people to hear is false, you are lying to them.
Think about it this way. Would the conclusion that pot should be prohibited logically flow from the argument that it is "associated with addiction?" No, people would find that argument nonsensical. It would be like arguing you would prohibit postage scales because they are "associated with" cocaine distribution.
Or maybe busybodies such as yourself cold learn to mind your own business.
You could use his argument as an argument for the prohibition of basically any currently-legal thing.