That "fake" data came straight from the people that are supposed to be the authority on climate change, the IPCC. I'm neither a denialist, nor a right-winger, but it is good to see that ad hominims get more mod points on this site than facts.

I agree completely

Interesting, posting of fact is worthy of being down-modded.

the skeptical science site is about as reliable a source as FOX news. Both are rubbish and you would do well to avoid using either of them as sources.

Place more importance on model output than empirical evidence at your peril...

I present to you the temp anomaly from the recently leaked IPCC AR5 draft.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png

please excuse the url source, it is where I happened to find the figure.

It is obvious to anyone with eyes that in the past Samsung designs were remarkably similar to those of the iPhone. However the SGIII is remarkably UNlike the iPhone in any way shape or form, and that is simply one example of a Samsung product that Apple has tried to have barred from sale.

An injunction on a device that is nearly a mirror image to that which is described in your design patent is one thing, but an injunction on a product that is nothing like your product based on patents which you claim can not be properly compensated for with money, but then is compensated for by others... with money... is an entirely different thing.

But yes, you are correct, an old Samsung phone which isn't effectively on the market any more looked a lot like an iPhone.

IANAL but I believe the issue that Samsung has is that Apple repeatedly seeks injunctions which would bar the sale of products by Samsung because Apple claims that monetary compensation, i.e. licencing fees, is not enough. Samsung is contending that many of the patents that Apple has used to have injunctions placed on Samsung products are included in the HTC licencing deal. In other words, monetary compensation clearly IS enough, and therefore any injunctions should be removed and Samsung should be offered similar licencing deals to the one that HTC has.

I can't be certain, but perhaps he was suggesting to replace your lawn with other plants instead of grass. A yard completely filled with perennial plants as opposed to grass would be a much greater CO2 sink. Additionally, grass is about as terrible a setup, next to paving, when it comes to storm water management. It is actually terrible in terms of infiltration compared to something like a perennial garden. You might say so what, we are talking about CO2, well, storm water treatment plants don't run on pixie dust and unicorn farts. So to summarize, yes, grass is a CO2 sink, but there are much better options available as compared to a manicured lawn for a variety of reasons.

How cute, an AC who can't read.

Do you honestly consider "So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt" to be a complete sentence? In this case, the ellipsis is indicating that the sentence would be finished with a description of the Android Fanboy. Said description is left off, and replaced with the ellipsis, leaving it to the reader to fill in using his imagination.

So, if you are going to attempt to correct a grammar Nazi, please do take care to ensure you have a fucking clue what you are talking about, OK pumpkin?

FTFY, oh, and an ellipsis only has three dots but now I'm just getting picky.

Have a look at 7digital.

DRM Free, and available in Canada.

So I assume you missed the article about Apple becoming the most valuable company in history. It what way are they lacking recognition? In what way are they suffering monetarily? If no other competition existed, would they be making even more money? sure, most likely, but it isn't like they are being put out of business because others are following their footsteps. The market is big enough for many, and growing.

What I don't understand is why Apple feels that it is entitled to exclusive rights to things that should NOT be patentable. A rectangle with rounded corners? a wedge shaped laptop? Slide to unlock? None of these warrant a patent. None of these should have any sort of exclusivity attached to them. It's insanity not only that they have been actually awarded such ludicrous patents, but also that people think that they are legitimate in any way shape or form.

You should have copyright on your exact software code so that it can't be copied word for word, you should be able to patent your SPECIFIC hardware design. You should be able to patent your SPECIFIC inventions (and I mean ACTUAL inventions, not, we took something that has been done, and we made it look pretty), but you shouldn't be awarded a patent on simple and vague ideas, and that goes for all companies, not just Apple. Things like attaching photos to emails, or other ridiculous patents that sound like an article in the Onion, unfortunately it is reality, not satire. Patents were meant to allow people to make money from their genuinely new inventions. They weren't meant to allow people to make money because they thought that hey, wouldn't it be great if you could use your fingers as fingers and point at things? Patent the heck out of the hardware that you design if it's new. Patent the heck out of the process required to physically put that hardware together. But no, you shouldn't get a patent on the idea of pushing something with your finger on a screen or the fact that your screen is a rectangle and that it is surrounded with a black bezel, like, oh, I don't know, every single flipping flat screen monitor and tv that ever hit the market before the iPhone or iPad were even considered!

[/nearly incoherent rant]

Nope, no step added. See where I continued my sentence by saying "or doing it in one step by using the "move to" button"

yeah, same thing as folders.

You still haven't shown anything that folders can do that labels can't.

that doesn't make sense though, since applying a label and then archiving the email, or doing it in one step by using the "move to" button, is the EXACT same as moving the email into a folder, except it isn't physically located in some folder. A folder is essentially a completely inflexible label. You are saying that an email belongs to this label and this label only when you put it in a folder. Using labels instead of folders allows you to have ALL the functionality of folders, but with the ADDED functionality that an email can exist in multiple folders/labels at the same time.

If you want to use your inbox as a to-do list, well, leave emails in your inbox until the item is complete, and then when it is complete, archive it. Labels actually HELP in this regard, because you can label something so that its context is easily identifiable, but it can still exist in your inbox until it is complete, at which point you archive it. With folders, you can't sort in this same way while things are in your inbox. You have to move it out of your inbox in order to sort it into a folder so that it has context, such as moving it into a project folder. I can label my emails as being associated with a particular project, and keeping it focused in the inbox as an item that needs to be taken care of using the label method. This is not possible with folders.

Your list of labels is on the left, just like a list of folders would be in any other mail program. When you click on a label title it gives you all the emails with that label, which is the exact same as clicking on a folder name and seeing all the email that is located in that folder.

You haven't demonstrated any functionality that folders have and labels lack.