A GNU kernel would have been delivered, and in the 1990s even, if Linux hadn't come around. But the HURD was a hard project, and many of the same factors that made the FSF decide against the adoption of Linux as the GNU kernel would have delayed adoption of a BSD kernel (and then there would have been development time, on the same in-house development model). Given that, a complete GNU system with FSF-supplied kernel may have been available by as early as, oh, late 1995.
And nobody would have cared. Because one of the BSD systems would have already had the mindshare, not a GNU system. Which means the GPL, copyleft, FSF, and RMS wouldn't have gotten the mindshare that they got from being attached to the pre-eminent free Unix.
The point here is not any technical achievement on Linus's part, or any lack of credit RMS wants to give him for his role in the GNU system. Rather, it's that if it weren't for a GPLed kernel being delivered in '93-'94, instead of '95-96, the "political" climate would be far less favorable to RMS. That he's asked to comment about Linus is the result of the prominence Linus gave him; nobody would have bothered asking him his opinion of the FreeBSD kernel developers if FreeBSD had become the leading free Unix.
There's a bit of ettiquette that's expressed as, "Dance withy the one that brung ya." When RMS criticises Linus's lack of zeal, that's the courtesy he isn't exercising.
Had Linus not wrote a kernel, we'd be in a BSD world today, because there still wouldn't have been a working GNU-based system in October and November 1994. How much attention would the FSF have gotten if, instead of using a GPLed kernel and userland, the only working free Unixlike kernel-and-userlands when the Internet went mainstream were FreeBSD and OpenBSD?
RMS is complaining that because his people utterly failed to make timely delivery of a kernel, somebody non-ideological wound up the symbol of the movement. In fact, he should be thanking Linus for saving him from utter irrelevance by delivering a GPLed kernel soon enough to matter, after the failure of TRIX and the disastrous decision to go with Mach rendered the GNU project unable to deliver a system in a relevant timeframe.
Um, no. Open, like free, has more than one meaning. It'd be exactly as accurate to say:
hence the difference between the terms "open source" (meaning, as per Oxford English Disctionary, source "that may be used, shared, or competed for without restriction") and "free software" (meaning that the source is free as in gratis).
The analysis of the droid was that she lost her will to live, yes. Why are you taking that at face value? What does that droid know of the Force?
Instead, think of Vader dying, drawing on the dark side of the Force to try to live. Think of Padme, still loving Anakin and selflessly hoping that he lives. Remember the ability of the Force to forge connections between people. Imagine Padme, knowing her children are safe with people she trusts, sacrificing her own life out of compassion to save her husband. Imagine Vader, hardened by the Dark Side, drawing on the life-force that's available in his anger at dying, without a care as to its source, in a twisted reversal of the legend of Darth Plaugeis.
In short, imagine that Sidious told Vader the exact and literal truth -- "I'm afraid she died.... it seems in your anger, you killed her."
The Wal-Mart will be next to a Fry's a maximum of 2.666...% of the time, because there are all of 32 Fry's in the entire United States. Wal-Mart tested this concept in 20 locations, and will be introducing them in 1,200 stores.
Now, on the compete-against-Fry's question, I ask you -- who's going to get beeter deals from the components manufacturers? A purchasing manager for 1,200 stores, or one for 32 stores?
In any case, Fry's is so small that Wal-Mart doesn't really have to worry about them, at least outside California. CompUSA and to a certain extent BestBuy are its competitors for this business.
Multiparty systems coalesce into de facto two-party systems.
Germany has five parties that get enough votes to have seats in the Bundestag. You can choose between the parties that will put the leader of the Christian Democrats in charge, and the parties that will put the leader of the Social Democrats in charge.
India was long dominated by the Congress party, despite a multiplicity of parties. Now it's broadened -- you get to choose between a party that will put a member of the Congress party in charge or the leader of the BJP in charge.
France has several parties. You can vote for the RPR-allied parties, or the Socialist-allied parties.
Australia has a bunch of parties, and you can choose to have the Liberals or Labor form the Government.
Britain has three significant parties, of which two can form a government.
Canada has four significant parties, of which two can form a government.
Italy just had an election. Lots of parties ran. Your choices were Prodi's coalition or Berlusconi's.
Strip out all of the applications like explorer and IE and media player. Zap FreeCell and textedit and paint and "theme" managers all of that junk. Eliminate all of the control panels and user and system managers that OS X already provides. Eliminate thousands upon thousands of device drivers for hardware not supported by Apple. Slap some WinAPI facades on existing OS X networking and printer drivers.
Right. After you've done all that, you have a problem that's merely several times harder, due to the expansion over the last decade of the Windows API, than the problems Sun faced back in 1993 with WABI and IBM faced in 1996 with Open32.
OS/2 only supported the Win16 API by running a very slightly patched copy of Windows in a DOS virtual machine with an OS/2 virtual memory driver, despite the fact that the Win16 API was far smaller, simpler, and easier to implement than the modern Win32 API. And IBM had (and still has) to pay Microsoft an OEM-level per unit fee on copies of Windows included with copies of OS/2.
Now, for Apple to pull an OS/2, Microsoft would have had to been stupid enough in the patent deal to have given Apple the rights to use the source code of the enitre Win32 personality of the NT series, or the entire Windows 9x codebase, or both. But whatever Cringley's anonymous sources say, that almost certainly never happened; Microsoft didn't get anything from the Apple deal remotely worth giving that sort of access.
First, the amount of energy needed will stay the same, whether you run your truck on gasoline, diesel, alcohol, natural gas, wood, coal, electricity, hydrogen or gooseshit.
Well, yes, but biodiesel's energy comes from the Sun, via photosynthesis. And while solar will eventually run out, when it does the Earth will be uninhabitable anyway.
Second, the result of combustion will always be CO2 (except for Hydrogen and electricity), so forget about cancelling global warming.
Except, of course, all the CO2 put out by burning by biodisel is CO2 that the plants took out of the air in the first place, so there's no increase in atmospheric CO2.
Third, where are you going to grow all the plants needed to make all that vegetable oil and alcohol???
Ah, now you've struck a useful note. Even if all the Earth's arable land surface were farmed at American productivity levels with maximum-production oil crops, we still couldn't displace ordinary diesel use.
However, there is an alternative; oily algae. While the infrastructure to start producing it in necessary qantities would be expensive, it has high-enough oil output per acre to be a practical alternative. And the land for it can be vast tracts of desert, the pools filled with seawater.
Where are you going to take the energy needed to transform all those plants into biodiesel?
The energy content of biodiesel exceeds the energy necessary to process high-oil algae; the primary energy source for the creation of the long oil chains is the plant's photosynthesis. The result is that biodiesel-powered generators could be used to generate the power for the pressing and conversion process.
How many people will starve so the americans can still move their arses in their plush trucks???
None, just like today. Some will continue to starve because of deliberately chosen policies of thier national governments, like every recorded famine of the last thirty years. But changing that is a matter of willingness to violently violate the soverignty of the famine-causing governments, not economics or resource distribution.
There is no miracle solution,
Right, just solutions that require difficult and expensive -- but achievable -- engineering.
It sounds like the *nix VM world is moving along the track established by . . . IBM's CP/67 (later VM/370) projects.
Of course, Linux on zSeries is already out, stable, and effective for S/390 and later zSeries hardware, and plays very nicely with z/VM. The tricky part is doing the same thing on x86 boxes (given the instructiuon set noncompliance with Popek-Goldberg), which is why there are so many projects going at it from so many different angles.
Hard disks, unlike removable discs, have the advantage of being able to have the relation of the heads and media very, very precisely engineered, which means data can be laid more densely on the media. So unless there's a major breakthrough on optical density that has no magnetic denisty equivalent, fixed-media disk systems should always be able to handle more data than removable-media.
As a result, the right medium for backup, assuming a willingness to make the investment, is and always has been tape. Because it packs much more surface area into a single reasonably-dimensioned package than can be done with a removable disc, it will always be better at holding bulk data.
It sold solidly in DVD upon release (extremely well in comparison to its box office) , and is popular with an audience that is relatively high on early adopters. It's a reasonable choice for an early HD-DVD release.
There'd be no market at all for the developer tools on Windows. The same open source tools that can currently compile stuff for the GNUstep-on-Windows could, with very little adaptation effort, take stuff developed under Xcode and compile it to run under Yellow Box for Windows.
Apple Corps did not merely produce music. Among other activities, it also had a division named Apple Electronics that, interestingly enough, made portable music players. So when Apple Computer made electronics able to play music -- the Apple IIgs -- Apple Corps sued, and Apple Computer decided to settle rather than fight out the trademark battle. Which is why the specific terms of that settlement are so important.
Let's asume, for example, that the judge holds that Apple Computer did violate the trademark agreement, but also rules that the violation did not cause damages because there was no confusion over trademark generated. That would still end the agreement, and Apple Corps could then seek to resume their involvement in the music player industry from which they've been excluded since 1991 . . say, by releasing an apple-shaped radio like before, but this time with a Flash-based MP3 player integrated.
Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
Apple Computer seems to have a leg to stand on with this one.
Only according to the statements of the attorney for Apple Computer.
Assuming that a lawyer in a case is doing antything other than making the most forceful argument for his client that he can is a good way to be decieved. Note, for perspective, that according to the statements of the attorneys for the SCO Group, the SCO Group's case against IBM is worth billions of dollars.
Well, how about Windows Me? Windows Me shipped more copies than Apple has shipped of all its operating systems in its entire thirty-year history. It's only compared to Microsoft's successes that it was a flop. And if the standard of comparison is Microsoft's successes, Apple has never had an OS that did anything other than flop.
Um? Break 10% marketshare? In Jobs's dreams. Mac sales are showing strong growth, yes, but not that strong.
If 1Q06's gain over 1Q05 annualizes, they're on track to sell 5.4 million Macs this year, beating the pants off the best unit-sales fiscal years in Apple history (1995, 2000, and 2005, all around 4.5 million units sold).
However, 208 million x86 machines shipped in 2005. Assume two-thirds are servers (the usual number is 50%), and we only care about non-servers. Assume, for the first time in all history, no year-on-year unit PC sales growth in 2006. In that case, Apple "only" needs to sell 6.9 million computers to get to 10% non-server marketshare.
You're the one who brought up 1980s software and "over 20 years of backwards compatibility". It's interesting that you now want to shift the ground. Perhaps you didn't actually know as much about the Windows side of things as you thought? Maybe you should back down from your claim that Apple's backwards compatibility is "much better" given that you don't actually seem to be familiar enough with both systems to make such a claim, instead relying on an impression based on the anecdotes of others?
No, of course not. You're an OS religious warrior. Who needs truth when you have faith?
VisiCalc 1.0 for DOS (1981) and WordStar 3.0 for DOS (1982) run fine on my XP box. You're invited to try the same experiment with Apple II programs on a MacBook Pro.
The first thing is to determine whether iTMS constituted Apple Computer violating the terms of their agreement with Apple Corps, whether or not such violation was an infringement of trademark law.
If there was a violation, then Apple Comupter could wind up owing Apple Corps money for every iTMS sale, and be prohibited from further such sales without Apple Corp's (presumably expensive) consent.
Worse, such a violation then re-opens the trademark dispute settled in '91, which has two major aspects:
1) The '91 settlement agreement specifically allowed Apple Computer to sell music playback devices, which given the dispute was over the Apple IIgs, clearly includes computers. Given that Apple Corp's Apple Electronics division had been specifically involved in the music player market at one time, if the settlement was voided by Apple Computer's actions, then Apple Computer's sale of computers with music playback capability under the Apple brand arguably constituted a violation of Apple Corp's trademark in the field of music players. In theory, the result could be royalties to Apple Corps on every sound-equipped computer sold under the Apple brand since the violation of the agreement plus a prohibition on further sales of music playback enabled computers under the Apple name without Apple Corps's permission.
2) There's the question if Apple Computer's apple logo is confusingly similar to Apple Corp's apple logo, which would directly affect every iPod sale. In which case, Apple Corps could get a cut of every iPod ever sold and require Apple Computer to drop the logo from those devices.
Oh, and there'ss something else. Early iPod posters in at least some places apparently had "Brought to you by Apple Music" or the like printed on them. Apple Music is the name of Apple Corps's publishing division. Even if Apple Corps loses on everything else, they may well get something for that marketing given the history of Apple-Apple dealings wears the "innocent mistake" defense a bit thin.
Er? You really do have no concept of what really happened, do you?
The Crusades didn't destroy Arab civilization. The Crusades didn't even seriously hurt Arab civilization. The only people really hurt in the long run by the Crusades were the Europeans of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which had its capital seized by Venice in the redirected Fourth Crusade. The Mongols delivered the great blow to Arab civilization back in the sack of Baghdad. After that, the Muslim Turks conquered the Arab world, and then invaded Europe (absorbing the weakened Byzantine Empire) and came within an ace of conquering Vienna. The Turks retained their conquests until the 19th Century, when it was wracked by internal rebellions. And what are now Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and western Saudi Arabia were still unified under Turkish Muslim rule until World War I.
Slashdot Mirror
You're ignoring the timeframe.
A GNU kernel would have been delivered, and in the 1990s even, if Linux hadn't come around. But the HURD was a hard project, and many of the same factors that made the FSF decide against the adoption of Linux as the GNU kernel would have delayed adoption of a BSD kernel (and then there would have been development time, on the same in-house development model). Given that, a complete GNU system with FSF-supplied kernel may have been available by as early as, oh, late 1995.
And nobody would have cared. Because one of the BSD systems would have already had the mindshare, not a GNU system. Which means the GPL, copyleft, FSF, and RMS wouldn't have gotten the mindshare that they got from being attached to the pre-eminent free Unix.
The point here is not any technical achievement on Linus's part, or any lack of credit RMS wants to give him for his role in the GNU system. Rather, it's that if it weren't for a GPLed kernel being delivered in '93-'94, instead of '95-96, the "political" climate would be far less favorable to RMS. That he's asked to comment about Linus is the result of the prominence Linus gave him; nobody would have bothered asking him his opinion of the FreeBSD kernel developers if FreeBSD had become the leading free Unix.
There's a bit of ettiquette that's expressed as, "Dance withy the one that brung ya." When RMS criticises Linus's lack of zeal, that's the courtesy he isn't exercising.
Had Linus not wrote a kernel, we'd be in a BSD world today, because there still wouldn't have been a working GNU-based system in October and November 1994. How much attention would the FSF have gotten if, instead of using a GPLed kernel and userland, the only working free Unixlike kernel-and-userlands when the Internet went mainstream were FreeBSD and OpenBSD?
RMS is complaining that because his people utterly failed to make timely delivery of a kernel, somebody non-ideological wound up the symbol of the movement. In fact, he should be thanking Linus for saving him from utter irrelevance by delivering a GPLed kernel soon enough to matter, after the failure of TRIX and the disastrous decision to go with Mach rendered the GNU project unable to deliver a system in a relevant timeframe.
Um, no. Open, like free, has more than one meaning. It'd be exactly as accurate to say:
hence the difference between the terms "open source" (meaning, as per Oxford English Disctionary, source "that may be used, shared, or competed for without restriction") and "free software" (meaning that the source is free as in gratis).
Either that or yet more bloat will be required to immediately recall recently-closed tabs.
That's already written -- UndoCloseTab Extension.
The analysis of the droid was that she lost her will to live, yes. Why are you taking that at face value? What does that droid know of the Force?
... it seems in your anger, you killed her."
Instead, think of Vader dying, drawing on the dark side of the Force to try to live. Think of Padme, still loving Anakin and selflessly hoping that he lives. Remember the ability of the Force to forge connections between people. Imagine Padme, knowing her children are safe with people she trusts, sacrificing her own life out of compassion to save her husband. Imagine Vader, hardened by the Dark Side, drawing on the life-force that's available in his anger at dying, without a care as to its source, in a twisted reversal of the legend of Darth Plaugeis.
In short, imagine that Sidious told Vader the exact and literal truth -- "I'm afraid she died.
The Wal-Mart will be next to a Fry's a maximum of 2.666...% of the time, because there are all of 32 Fry's in the entire United States. Wal-Mart tested this concept in 20 locations, and will be introducing them in 1,200 stores.
Now, on the compete-against-Fry's question, I ask you -- who's going to get beeter deals from the components manufacturers? A purchasing manager for 1,200 stores, or one for 32 stores?
In any case, Fry's is so small that Wal-Mart doesn't really have to worry about them, at least outside California. CompUSA and to a certain extent BestBuy are its competitors for this business.
Multiparty systems coalesce into de facto two-party systems.
Germany has five parties that get enough votes to have seats in the Bundestag. You can choose between the parties that will put the leader of the Christian Democrats in charge, and the parties that will put the leader of the Social Democrats in charge.
India was long dominated by the Congress party, despite a multiplicity of parties. Now it's broadened -- you get to choose between a party that will put a member of the Congress party in charge or the leader of the BJP in charge.
France has several parties. You can vote for the RPR-allied parties, or the Socialist-allied parties.
Australia has a bunch of parties, and you can choose to have the Liberals or Labor form the Government.
Britain has three significant parties, of which two can form a government.
Canada has four significant parties, of which two can form a government.
Italy just had an election. Lots of parties ran. Your choices were Prodi's coalition or Berlusconi's.
Strip out all of the applications like explorer and IE and media player. Zap FreeCell and textedit and paint and "theme" managers all of that junk. Eliminate all of the control panels and user and system managers that OS X already provides. Eliminate thousands upon thousands of device drivers for hardware not supported by Apple. Slap some WinAPI facades on existing OS X networking and printer drivers.
Right. After you've done all that, you have a problem that's merely several times harder, due to the expansion over the last decade of the Windows API, than the problems Sun faced back in 1993 with WABI and IBM faced in 1996 with Open32.
OS/2 only supported the Win16 API by running a very slightly patched copy of Windows in a DOS virtual machine with an OS/2 virtual memory driver, despite the fact that the Win16 API was far smaller, simpler, and easier to implement than the modern Win32 API. And IBM had (and still has) to pay Microsoft an OEM-level per unit fee on copies of Windows included with copies of OS/2.
Now, for Apple to pull an OS/2, Microsoft would have had to been stupid enough in the patent deal to have given Apple the rights to use the source code of the enitre Win32 personality of the NT series, or the entire Windows 9x codebase, or both. But whatever Cringley's anonymous sources say, that almost certainly never happened; Microsoft didn't get anything from the Apple deal remotely worth giving that sort of access.
A thing to note -- the OS/2 4 effort was given up by IBM, but it was improved and extended by the Odin project, which then borrowed WINE code.
First, the amount of energy needed will stay the same, whether you run your truck on gasoline, diesel, alcohol, natural gas, wood, coal, electricity, hydrogen or gooseshit.
Well, yes, but biodiesel's energy comes from the Sun, via photosynthesis. And while solar will eventually run out, when it does the Earth will be uninhabitable anyway.
Second, the result of combustion will always be CO2 (except for Hydrogen and electricity), so forget about cancelling global warming.
Except, of course, all the CO2 put out by burning by biodisel is CO2 that the plants took out of the air in the first place, so there's no increase in atmospheric CO2.
Third, where are you going to grow all the plants needed to make all that vegetable oil and alcohol???
Ah, now you've struck a useful note. Even if all the Earth's arable land surface were farmed at American productivity levels with maximum-production oil crops, we still couldn't displace ordinary diesel use.
However, there is an alternative; oily algae. While the infrastructure to start producing it in necessary qantities would be expensive, it has high-enough oil output per acre to be a practical alternative. And the land for it can be vast tracts of desert, the pools filled with seawater.
Where are you going to take the energy needed to transform all those plants into biodiesel?
The energy content of biodiesel exceeds the energy necessary to process high-oil algae; the primary energy source for the creation of the long oil chains is the plant's photosynthesis. The result is that biodiesel-powered generators could be used to generate the power for the pressing and conversion process.
How many people will starve so the americans can still move their arses in their plush trucks???
None, just like today. Some will continue to starve because of deliberately chosen policies of thier national governments, like every recorded famine of the last thirty years. But changing that is a matter of willingness to violently violate the soverignty of the famine-causing governments, not economics or resource distribution.
There is no miracle solution,
Right, just solutions that require difficult and expensive -- but achievable -- engineering.
It sounds like the *nix VM world is moving along the track established by . . . IBM's CP/67 (later VM/370) projects.
Of course, Linux on zSeries is already out, stable, and effective for S/390 and later zSeries hardware, and plays very nicely with z/VM. The tricky part is doing the same thing on x86 boxes (given the instructiuon set noncompliance with Popek-Goldberg), which is why there are so many projects going at it from so many different angles.
Hard disks, unlike removable discs, have the advantage of being able to have the relation of the heads and media very, very precisely engineered, which means data can be laid more densely on the media. So unless there's a major breakthrough on optical density that has no magnetic denisty equivalent, fixed-media disk systems should always be able to handle more data than removable-media.
As a result, the right medium for backup, assuming a willingness to make the investment, is and always has been tape. Because it packs much more surface area into a single reasonably-dimensioned package than can be done with a removable disc, it will always be better at holding bulk data.
Is Serenity selling DVDs like hotcakes?
It sold solidly in DVD upon release (extremely well in comparison to its box office) , and is popular with an audience that is relatively high on early adopters. It's a reasonable choice for an early HD-DVD release.
There'd be no market at all for the developer tools on Windows. The same open source tools that can currently compile stuff for the GNUstep-on-Windows could, with very little adaptation effort, take stuff developed under Xcode and compile it to run under Yellow Box for Windows.
Apple Corps did not merely produce music. Among other activities, it also had a division named Apple Electronics that, interestingly enough, made portable music players. So when Apple Computer made electronics able to play music -- the Apple IIgs -- Apple Corps sued, and Apple Computer decided to settle rather than fight out the trademark battle. Which is why the specific terms of that settlement are so important.
Let's asume, for example, that the judge holds that Apple Computer did violate the trademark agreement, but also rules that the violation did not cause damages because there was no confusion over trademark generated. That would still end the agreement, and Apple Corps could then seek to resume their involvement in the music player industry from which they've been excluded since 1991 . . say, by releasing an apple-shaped radio like before, but this time with a Flash-based MP3 player integrated.
Apple Computer seems to have a leg to stand on with this one.
Only according to the statements of the attorney for Apple Computer.
Assuming that a lawyer in a case is doing antything other than making the most forceful argument for his client that he can is a good way to be decieved. Note, for perspective, that according to the statements of the attorneys for the SCO Group, the SCO Group's case against IBM is worth billions of dollars.
This is a case in Britain. In Britain, the loser pays the legal fees and expenses of the winner.
How about . . . Windows ME?
Well, how about Windows Me? Windows Me shipped more copies than Apple has shipped of all its operating systems in its entire thirty-year history. It's only compared to Microsoft's successes that it was a flop. And if the standard of comparison is Microsoft's successes, Apple has never had an OS that did anything other than flop.
Um? Break 10% marketshare? In Jobs's dreams. Mac sales are showing strong growth, yes, but not that strong.
If 1Q06's gain over 1Q05 annualizes, they're on track to sell 5.4 million Macs this year, beating the pants off the best unit-sales fiscal years in Apple history (1995, 2000, and 2005, all around 4.5 million units sold).
However, 208 million x86 machines shipped in 2005. Assume two-thirds are servers (the usual number is 50%), and we only care about non-servers. Assume, for the first time in all history, no year-on-year unit PC sales growth in 2006. In that case, Apple "only" needs to sell 6.9 million computers to get to 10% non-server marketshare.
You're the one who brought up 1980s software and "over 20 years of backwards compatibility". It's interesting that you now want to shift the ground. Perhaps you didn't actually know as much about the Windows side of things as you thought? Maybe you should back down from your claim that Apple's backwards compatibility is "much better" given that you don't actually seem to be familiar enough with both systems to make such a claim, instead relying on an impression based on the anecdotes of others?
No, of course not. You're an OS religious warrior. Who needs truth when you have faith?
How many circa 1985 DOS programs run under XP?
VisiCalc 1.0 for DOS (1981) and WordStar 3.0 for DOS (1982) run fine on my XP box. You're invited to try the same experiment with Apple II programs on a MacBook Pro.
The first thing is to determine whether iTMS constituted Apple Computer violating the terms of their agreement with Apple Corps, whether or not such violation was an infringement of trademark law.
If there was a violation, then Apple Comupter could wind up owing Apple Corps money for every iTMS sale, and be prohibited from further such sales without Apple Corp's (presumably expensive) consent.
Worse, such a violation then re-opens the trademark dispute settled in '91, which has two major aspects:
1) The '91 settlement agreement specifically allowed Apple Computer to sell music playback devices, which given the dispute was over the Apple IIgs, clearly includes computers. Given that Apple Corp's Apple Electronics division had been specifically involved in the music player market at one time, if the settlement was voided by Apple Computer's actions, then Apple Computer's sale of computers with music playback capability under the Apple brand arguably constituted a violation of Apple Corp's trademark in the field of music players. In theory, the result could be royalties to Apple Corps on every sound-equipped computer sold under the Apple brand since the violation of the agreement plus a prohibition on further sales of music playback enabled computers under the Apple name without Apple Corps's permission.
2) There's the question if Apple Computer's apple logo is confusingly similar to Apple Corp's apple logo, which would directly affect every iPod sale. In which case, Apple Corps could get a cut of every iPod ever sold and require Apple Computer to drop the logo from those devices.
Oh, and there'ss something else. Early iPod posters in at least some places apparently had "Brought to you by Apple Music" or the like printed on them. Apple Music is the name of Apple Corps's publishing division. Even if Apple Corps loses on everything else, they may well get something for that marketing given the history of Apple-Apple dealings wears the "innocent mistake" defense a bit thin.
Item number one is coffee, an export of Christian Ethiopia.
I stopped reading there. "1001 things Muslims had before Europeans" is not the same as "1001 Islamic Inventions".
Er? You really do have no concept of what really happened, do you?
The Crusades didn't destroy Arab civilization. The Crusades didn't even seriously hurt Arab civilization. The only people really hurt in the long run by the Crusades were the Europeans of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which had its capital seized by Venice in the redirected Fourth Crusade. The Mongols delivered the great blow to Arab civilization back in the sack of Baghdad. After that, the Muslim Turks conquered the Arab world, and then invaded Europe (absorbing the weakened Byzantine Empire) and came within an ace of conquering Vienna. The Turks retained their conquests until the 19th Century, when it was wracked by internal rebellions. And what are now Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and western Saudi Arabia were still unified under Turkish Muslim rule until World War I.