That's not something to celebrate publicly. Gentlemen and Ladies don't kiss and tell.

From another point of view, there's just one "kind" of living organisms on Earth, the ones who share the same DNA/RNA and protein encoding scheme. Inside this one "kind", you can take a gene from any other organism and insert it into another, and expect it to produce the same protein.

I suppose one could get into semi-interesting argument about prions, which don't have a protein encoding scheme as such. As far as I understand them, they could and would exist just the same as long as there are proteins, no matter how and where they're encoded in whatever genome of "real" living organisms.

Problem is, what does "kind" mean. Both dogs and frogs are "tetrapod kind", are they not? So they are same "kind" then? Or there is no "tetrapod kind"?

The answer is, "kinds", whatever that means, are nested. And ultimately, all living organism are all same "DNA with certain specific protein encoding scheme" kind. So there's just one kind. This usually isn't compatible with the religious doctrine of those who like to talk about "kinds" and "micro evolution" and who really really want multiple distinct, separately created kinds to exist. Alas, reality does not seem to match their belief.

The problem is "kind" does not really mean anything exact. You could also say, in biological evolution, "kinds" can only evolve into new "kinds". The "cat kind" can not evolve into the "dog kind". Also, what ever new "kind" the "cat kind" may evolve into, they will also remain "can kind" at the same time. And incidentally, this kind of "evolving into new kinds" is exactly what is shown both by fossil record and by phylogenetic analysis.

People who talk about "kinds" and evolution together don't usually grasp this. Then there's the inevitable degeneration into talking about cats evolving into dogs, when one tries to explain the basics of phylogenetics.

There's no point in this discussion, unless you define "kind". As long it is undefined, everything is just handwaving.

If we cut through the irrelevant, as far as I can see, those who talk about "kind" mean "the different types of life that were created separately". These kinds really would be totally separate. Too bad the observations of nature tell us, there aren't this kind of separate "kinds". There's just one tree of life sharing the same DNA-protein encoding scheme, just one "kind", making the whole term redundant.

Species evolving into new species is not incredibly unlikely, it's basically inevitable. A species evolving into another *existing* species, like some population of cats evolving to become dogs (able to breed with other dogs) genetically, that's much less likely than "incredibly unlikely", it's so unlikely it's indistinguishable from impossible.

This may have a lot to do with proprietary display drivers, sometimes not available at all for Linux (what's the status of Linux PowerVR drivers anyway?), forcing them to do everything with CPU, and Atom isn't sold for it's processing power.

Also, if you don't mind, I'll take that "all effects turned on" + "very smoothly" with a grain of salt...

"posits the completely unobserved transition between kinds of animal"

Well, no, there's no transition between "kinds of animal" really. I suppose you could say such transitions happened when different "kingdoms of life" appeared (we really have no clue how exactly that went down, just wild speculation), but not between animals. Or to put it another way, cat will not have evolutionary transition to a dog, just to a different cat. From this follows, humans, cats and dogs are just different tetrapods. Earlier tetrapods had "transitions" to cats (still tetrapod), dogs (still tetrapod) and humans (also still tetrapods).

To repeat, there is no transition between "kinds of animal" in the theory of evolution. And rest of your post kinda falls apart from this simple misunderstanding.

Being a contractor does not matter, but being a citizen does. It gives not just a right but an obligation to take the measures they think are necessary, when faced with something as treacherous as what Snowden faced. The democratically elected part of the government was largely in the dark about this, making Snowden's actions doubly justified. The decisions needed at a situation like that are hard on many levels. He did pretty good, even in hindsight.

..."no problem whatsoever" in the sense, that it doesn't kill enough people to have impact on human population size, and "highly redundant" also on the sense that there usually are many spare people to replace those killed/maimed by such brain blind spots.

You see, it should do that automatically, if device for example breaks or is wiped. It seems it doesn't, because many people seem to have real problems with it. So, either it's a crappy product/service needing some fixing, or it's a crappy concept if it's unfixable.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're also aware of this and are just trolling, so never mind...

Now this has gotta be an anti-Apple troll... If you don't understand the value of reliable, non-intrusive text message communications, then the problem is at your end. I'm not even saying you yourself need to find it valuable, I'm just asking you to understand that many people think that's very very valuable.

Thanks for proving my 2nd issue with Apple. Unless you are an anti-Apple troll, which I kind of hope you are, actually.

The problem (based on all the other comments here) seems to be, it can sometimes be really hard to notify (or find out how to notify) this particular service to stop doing it's thing... I indeed steer clear of those kind of services.

Hmm. I've got a spare iPhone available, and I was thinking of giving it a test drive. It's soon time to change phones, and I've never had an iPhone.

Sounds like I better steer clear of iPhone after all, to avoid nasty surprises. FUD worked! Except sounds like this is actually true, and all these Apple fans saying people with this problem are stupid, that doesn't help here.

That's only because of the broad, vague meaning of "leg" and "wing". The examples you list are vastly different structurally and functionally.

Without something concrete, consequences such as those sanctions and bans and threat of them becoming more and more severe, Russian tanks would most likely have already rolled to Eastern Ukraine. Whether that's helping to eventually defuse the crisis, or just helping to prolong it by preventing Russia from ending it in SU style, that's matter of opinion.