Irrelevant that it can. What is relevant is would it?It would be able to hardware emulate yor[sic] PowerPC at twice the speed you're used to, if he obtains the hardware that the runs the latest OS X. Since the if condition may not be true, and it is likely not true otherwise the post would not have been made, your point is completely irrelevant.

No one pretended that. Just you pretended that the GP pretended that.

This line of argument appears to justify violence that is suggested in the book. And there might be some, in at least one interpretation which we can't prove incorrect. Clearly counter productive to your (and mine) goal of reducing violence. What do you think?

I prefer arguing against violence whether or not any book recommends it.

Heh, too much work. All the terrorists should simply be required by law to set a 'terrorist' bit in their network protocols.

While insults and swear words may hurt - it is a self-inflicted injury. There was a time when me, and many of my mates underwent a transformation by being subjected to order of magnitude more insults and swear words - they stopped hurting, within a few weeks of "practice". So much so that some swear words took on the shape of terms of endearment - literally, if only informally.

While martial arts training can make many physical injuries also less painful - there are 2 significant differences. Training required here stretches into years not weeks, and yet it doesn't work against extreme force e.g. bullet from most guns. "Training" against swear words and insults takes only weeks and completely immunizes against extreme forms of swear words and insults.

(Note that threats of injury are not included in insults and swear words for the above 2 paragraphs).

So it can be argued that the constitutional injunction refers to the suffering that is inflicted by the perpetrator, not oneself.

That doesn't make breathing carbon neutral. Breathing itself still puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than it had before breathing. NOT carbon neutral.

Misleadingly meaning breathing+eating+growing food when using the word "breathing" makes it carbon neutral. Which is exactly as misleading as meaning burning+digging+creation of fossil fuels when using the word "burning".

Technological feasibility doesn't matter - both these cycles are carbon neutral, isolation of single step in them is not carbon neutral, and using single step to mean the whole cycle is identically misleading.

Yes, digging fossil fuels and excluding the formation of fossil fuels from the cycle makes it non-carbon-neutral. Eating food, converting into CO2 and excluding formation of food from the cycle makes breathing non-carbon-neutral.

Include the synthesis of fossil fuels and food from atmospheric CO2, and that will make burning fossil fuels and breathing carbon neutral.

This way burning fossil fuels is also carbon neutral - by adding the million year old synthesis into the cycle. Breathing is carbon neutral - only if you add the plant synthesis over last few month.

By adding appropriate reverse chemical reaction, every chemical reaction is carbon neutral. So only nuclear (mostly fusion) reactions which create carbon are non-carbon-neutral.

Plants have already converted CO2 to solid organic matter and O2. After that, breathing is not carbon neutral.

Yes, just deal with a trillion take down notices whenever the Man doesn't like it.

Why does iOS and mobile need annual release cycles? Most other mobile manufacturers have phone releases randomly - sometimes 3 in a month, sometimes one in 3 months. Having a low frequency release cycle has helped Apple cut out customer confusion - but strictly an annual release cycle may not have anything to do with it. A inter-release time of 9 months to 30 months would do as much good as a strictly annual release. Anyway the agenda of Apple events is "strictly confidential".

The other mobile manufacturers have also kind of hopped on to annual release bandwagon - e.g. the Samsung Note , or Samsung Galaxy S series. But not Samsung as a whole, and it is not clear strictly annual cycle is helping these series either. A Galaxy S user would as easily switch to Galaxy Grand - as he would switch to next Galaxy S phone. Even switching to some HTC phone is not a big deal.

Yet you need to misinterpret indefinite future to mean immediate future to understand the "obvious" problem and solution.

So you need explaining what you yourself say is "obvious to everyone". Nice excuse, but it is not going to hide your idiocy.

Your idiotic comment which missed that very point necessitated this obvious statement of mine. Though later I realized you were even more idiotic and conflated immediate future with indefinite future.

Explained here (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6589027&cid=48722561). At which point you changed the topic.

Conclusively proving your idiocy should be interesting enough, even though you might have heard it from many people, no?

Idiot, this post is about present and future tense - the present is not controversial and future is without a timeframe. To which you replied to with statements about today and the immediate future.