Try to pay less attention to Archbishop Ussher.

You're missing the point. Just because it involved an archbishop doesn't mean it is any more or less settled. The science is settled: the earch is not 6000 years old.

The point is to illustrate the insanity of the claim that nothig is settled by pointing to something ridiculous. You might also say:

The science is settled! Time is not a cube.

The whole of scientific method is positing an idea and then doing experiments that prove and experiments that fail to disprove. Note the later.

Nope, that's a misunderstanding of reality based on at best a schoolboy level of science. Basically, you dismiss all the ovservational sciences because you can't do experiments.

That means evolutionary history is gone as is astronomy, because those are based exclusively on observation. Personally, I'm willing to state that stars do, in fact, exist.

Wanna bet that they don't?

I've seen this before though and this is the same wheel that everyone goes through.

"Look we got our system to run with 50% less memory!"

"Ok, so we sacrificed all of the features people expect these days, and in the last 3 years prices have dropped sufficiently that our product is no longer needed, but just wait for our next version!"

The better approach is to tackle low end devices like Microsoft and Google are already doing (And WP8 runs very well on low end systems) but not let it be your driving focus. Because inevitably what's a "high end" phone today will be a $5 prepaid phone in 3 years.

Everything Science Produces is a Theory through the use of application.

To see how this works consider a cave man, who theorizes fire isn't terrifying, but could be controlled for warmth in the cave.

So the brave soul takes some fire from a lightening struck tree and keeps using it to heat the cave by feeding it wood.

His theory is true, and everyone in the cave thinks he is a genius.

Does he understand how fire works, ultimately?

No.

He is considered an expert given the state of knowledge about fire for the time. Should he consider researching it further?

Yes, to continually refine the theory of fire and its applications.

Now I would like you to consider todays science in all of its vast corruption. Article after article says Man Made global warming is settled, all parameters about climate, and its impact for the past 15 years now by these experts have been telling us, if we do not kill 1/3rd of humanity (usually the poor and politically unwanted), we will turn the planet into Venus.

Decades go by, no change in fact it gets colder. Yet they proclaim supreme and ultimate knowledge of the entire Biosphere...short of proclaiming themselves infallible like the Gods.

Meanwhile, any further investigation to the theory of Man Made Global warming would be considered highly disadvantageous to ones academic career, if not fatal.

All of this is of course due in part to Al Gore's carbon exchange credits system they cooked up for an elite few bankers to get wealthy from, and to provide an income for a private army and world government since all nations would be taxed for carbon output.

All of this after decades go by and these people can't even tell you what the weather is going to be like next week, yet they want you to believe that if you do not pay your carbon taxes as a nation, the earth is doomed in about 10-15 years "snow will be a thing of the past".

Even so far as to going to FAKING FOOTAGE in contrived hollywood productions.

Science has lost its way in just about every single area in the the spectrum of research. Nature and other RAGS, publish frequently fake papers based on computer generated fake research and herald them as ground breaking for publication.

By review boards that consider themslves to be also some kind of infallible elite.

Here my words: Scientists of NATURE. You are usurpers and destroyers of science.

The last thing I would want to be is a industrial college complex produced scientist now days, and I work every day to defeat the companies that hire these worthless pieces of sh*t and put them out of business using open source.

Thankfully, with all of the PhD's that are on the dole at Microsoft, for example I (as well as many others) am well on my way to doing that. I and about a million other people world wide that don't need their crappy NSA contrived software, their crappy software products or customer service/monopoly patently illegal business.

In my case, open source allows me to continually review ideas in information science in my daily business and work, free from the crap I would have to put up with if I was in a college setting, including and up to accepting bribes from corporations to fund my lab and pushing pandering white papers on product endorsements that suck it and could not hold a candle to many open source equivalents.

Continual review of a scientific theory in the open, is what science is about. You can never claim something is a fact in science.

The best you can claim is that a theory is able to produce useful affects from nature to either build a product, or reduce human suffering...

Which is what science is suppose to be about ultimately addressing the human conditions of food, water, shelter, so that nobody goes without.

Once those things are taken care of, time and time again it is shown people pretty much almost stop breeding and turn inward to improve themselves intellectually as well as spiritually.

A goal that I guarantee you, absolutely frightens the global elite, and the panders of death, called "science" today.

No I didn't. Your point is irrelevant.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.

Finally, some semblance of a point. Apple has said they will trust a court. Period.

Again, her death certificate only says she died. The will and solicitor only says that her children get her possessions. Nowhere has anyone said legally that the iPad they have was once her possession. All they have is the word of her children which does not protect Apple from any legal liability. A court can say this. Apple will unlock the device when they get this legal proof. I'm sure that this isn't the first time that someone has tried to game a situation.

I wouldn't describe the Windows Phone market as "dead". It's doubled in the last 12 months and it looks like Microsoft has given up on it being a premium iPhone competitor which opens it up to competing with the crappy android hardware that's flooded the market.

With 1B smartphones sold each year even a 5-10% runner up represents a pretty substantial market for Qualcom.

AMD wouldn't have done anything if it weren't for Epic and Valve etc. AMD is responding to developer requests for more baremetal access. The developers who have been talking to AMD and NVidia are also talking to Microsoft and the OpenGL consortium and everybody in between.

You seem to miss the whole point. If your relative died and they had an iPad, you can claim that it was your relative's to get it unlocked, but Apple only has your word that it was your relative's iPad. You don't even know the AppleID to which it was locked. . What it turns out it was not your relative's? What if it was a borrowed or stolen iPad. People lie all the time about what they own. From Apple's standpoint, a court order resolves them from liability if you are not the legal owner. They don't require absolute proof just legal protection.

You don't get the point. Apple can technically unlock the device. They cannot be certain that the iPad that the children have is actually their mother's. Anyone can lie. They are not going to find out as this is a legal question. When the court gives them a court order, they'll do it.

Again you don't get the point. A MAC address or serial number tells nothing about who owns any particular iPad especially when the children don't know the AppleID (user account information) of their mother. AppleID accounts do not have to contain any identifying information other than a email address.

I think you fail to understand my point. Apple cannot be sure whose iPad it is. The family can claim that it was their mother's just like I can claim that iPad was mine. The family does not have an AppleID which the iPad appears locked as they don't have the information. All Apple is asking for is for a court not the family to absolve them from any liability.

Apple knows whose Apple ID the device is locked to. The children do not have the Apple ID or password.

Only if someone provides such information to Apple. An AppleID does not require an address or credit card. Only an email address. As for purchasing, remember that iPads are given as gifts. Even if Apple could track down who sold the device and to whom it was sold, they still can't sure who the owner is.

I don't think that's the real crux. I think that without any sort of proof that the iPad was hers, Apple can't unlock it. My reading of it is that the will divided the estate but did not name the iPad specifically. Without an AppleID or some sort of identifying information, Apple can't know that was her iPad and not someone else's. People probably have used situations like this before to game Apple. So they want a court order that essentially absolves them from deciding that. They'll unlock it when a court tells them to.

A building's provenance is generally more clear as the owner is registered somewhere. If you have an iPad, I can claim it as mine when my grandma died and so Apple has to unlock it without any proof that the iPad was really my grandmas'?

That's not Apple is asking for. Apple really is asking for an order from the court to absolve them from any liability for this iPad. They are putting it on a court so that if they device wasn't really hers they can't be responsible if the real owner starts suing.

You didn't get the parent's point. The children can only prove that they received an iPad when their mother died. They can't prove that the iPad they have is actually hers. How do they do that? Her AppleID would have given them some sort of proof as they can verify that the iPad is locked to an AppleID. But the children don't have the ID or the password. So Apple wants a court to give them an order to absolve them of any liability.