That seems like eerily familiar with the creationist concept of irreducibility which is considered to be a flawed concept. Two things to remember is that evolution is not goal driven and exaptation has been demonstrated countless times.

Er what? Circumventing DRM is still circumventing DRM. I think you assume that removing DRM is the only violation of the DMCA; it is not.

Which makes it then Real Player's issue to either build their own player then not hack Apple's system. To be fair the music industry wanted everyone to have incompatible ones so that everyone has to buy multiple copies.

This makes no sense at all. From the user's perspective any device has to play music formats and not all formats are compatible. But the standard at the time is not Harmony, not Fairplay but MP3.

Er, what? So you don't know how to use Expose and Spaces is Apple's fault.

And that is a problem with all Linux and Unix. Not every package is integrated.

http://www.tonymacx86.com/laptop-compatibility/106791-laptop-compatibility.html

For someone who uses Linux and OS X, I spend a lot of time using command line in OS X. I have no problems using Unix commands. Some of the options vary with OS X but most of the commands are the same. How is it different for you?

Maybe for the iOS products not their computers.

Because Apple never promised their customers that they would play RealPlayer's Harmony music. They promised they could play MP3s which are the standard, AAC which is the successor to MP3 and at the time FairPlay which was AAC with their DRM. Nowhere did they promise PlaysForSure or Harmony (AAC with RealPlayer's DRM).

In what world is taking advantage of a flaw in the the Apple's DRM so that your files mimic FairPlay files not circumventing DRM? If you wanted your iPod to play non DRM music, they played MP3s.

Yes which makes it all about Real getting Apple devices to do what they were not intended to do.

Um you realize than any MP3s that you buy from Amazon also works on an iPod right? The problem is that when you have DRM systems that are not compatible.

At the time MS didn't make an media player themselves. But that changed when they did. PlaysForSure v2 only worked on the Zune.

Well if you read the whole story you might have mentioned this bit "The plaintiffs sought to submit a 2012 academic paper Schultz wrote citing âoea secret warâ Apple fought with iTunes hackers." You could spin it that Apple blocked out competitors but you failed to mention that they hacked their way into an iPod. If you had MP3s Apple did not block them in any way. My music from Amazon has never been blocked.

That's not the definition of voluntary is it?

Again, they are not using fetuses. The origin of the cell line was from 40 years. For example if they sample you today and find that your cells make good cell lines, they may be that cell line long after you die. Sometimes they use cell lines from people who have donated their body to science. I would guess there would be advantages to using fetal cells as they are embryonic cells.

Second it is not clear that they are even using them at all. In testing vaccines, a researcher may use a cell line and not know the origin of them. The anti-vaxxers have made the objection that they are using aborted fetuses when they themselves don't know which lines were used in the testing. Some do not use cell lines to test at all.

Because in any given year, there are multiple strains of the flu. The strain that is picked for vaccines is based on an educated guess of what the prevalent strain might be for this year. This year it looks like they were wrong when they picked the strain. This is not rocket science

If you breathe in air every day, swallow water from a water fountain, touch dirt, foreign objects are penetrating your body all the time without consent.

Generally safe, yes. Safe for 100% of the population: no, no medication is. You are aware that every vaccine's studies are published right? Or did you even look?

Again there are studies if you bother to look.

Sigh. The money angle. Yes the corporations that make vaccines make some profit; however, it is far less than they would make if you were required to take them all the time. For example, the drug companies would rather have you take a daily pill like Lipitor at $50 a week than one $25 vaccine and maybe a booster in 10 years.

I fear you haven't but are raising questions without looking for the answers,

Except your viewpoint ignores the fact that a parent not giving a child penicillin or aspirin only affects that child. Not vaccinating affects everyone that child comes into contact with which by proxy also means the parents. Unless the family wants to withdraw from the entire world, there is not really a "safe" option then is there?

Again you missed the part where a woman who has an abortion is in the same room with me doesn't affect me does it? Her not getting a vaccine does affect me if we are in the same room.

One of main objection of the anti-vaxxers is that there are side effects for some and that the vaccines are "not safe" thus they should not be forced to take them. The voluntary part is just an excuse.

So your explanation to the eradication of smallpox is not the worldwide campaign to vaccinate but "better hygiene". What about places like 3rd world countries where "better hygiene" is still a problem today? Cholera is still a problem today in India because of lack of hygiene yet smallpox is gone.

And what are these "dirty fingerprints" that you speak of? Vaccines are different in that medicine has changed, yes. For examples the flu vaccine has a much more manufacturing focus as tens of millions of them of a new strain has to be produced every year.

Could you be more specific in which diseases you speak of? If you are talking about austism, no less than 8 separate studies around the world could not find a link. That and the original study appears to have fabricated the data.

And what is your exact objection here? Some of the cell lines that can be used to test vaccines may come from fetuses 40 years ago. But vaccines are not the only things they use those lines for and not all vaccines use the same lines. However, it is not the same as using fetuses to source the vaccine.

Remember the cell lines are derived from fetuses from 40 years ago; fetuses are not actually used. My best explanation is that they were discarded tissue (no owner) and the easiest to obtain. Also they are embryonic cells which may make some testing easier.