Let's not forget that not all iPhones/iPod Touchs/iPad run the same version of iOS... There is fragmentation there as well..

Actually, from the second link: "In the mock-up shown off at Japan's annual tech show Ceatec, a virtual Kyoto cityscape was created where a character, not unlike Window's animated paperclip, pops up to guide a person around the city"

Not sure why this was modded interesting -- pressing the back button until you no longer can see an application's activity DOES NOT "unload" the process from memory by default in Android.

Instead of charging upfront for their products, they offer them to their customers for free and collect revenue based on ad views... yes. You're saying their products are neither superior, nor innovative? What search engine do you use regularly? Who is your email provider? What website do you visit to host/watch videos? I'm only giving examples of their commercially successful products, of course.

I would agree mostly, although I don't think the content producer in question is really 'selling' the 'apple' (we're really drawing this analogy out :) per say -- they make their money off selling the ads people view when they come to look at said apple (ad time which they lose when someone takes a copy and shows it elsewhere).

If people are copying entire articles from the site and pasting them on their own page (outside of fair use), then the original content provider has reason to be upset. The issue I have here is that it's clearly not about protecting content in the eyes of this particular news site. If they were really concerned with this, they could simply send a C&D letter to those they find infringing and sue if they don't comply (more than likely they would never have to go to court). Instead, they're selling the rights to a copyright troll who's only way of staying in business is winning in court, or, more than likely, shaking them down for a settlement.

Well I'd hope so -- somewhere around 0hz -- as that's the point of the e-ink screen. What rate do your old textbook pages refresh at?

Jokes aside, I personally bought a nook (instead of reading on an ipad/monitor) because it's hard to read from a bright, 60hz-75hz display for an extended period of time. How is reading a book on your ipad any different than reading it on a netbook/laptop display?

You've both got the analogy wrong. Copyright violation != theft. A more appropriate version of your analogy:
If you put a note on the table that said "tell all your friends to come over here and look at this fruit", and one of them took a picture of the fruit and showed it to others then you might have a stronger case.

FTA: "Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the fiber will be shot down"

So Google fiber is shot down at the beginning of hunting season every year in Oregon, and you think the most logical explanation is a grassroots, anti-Google guerrilla movement?

Your link to the wikipedia entry on hollywood accounting provides some good examples of just how much the studios care for the artists:

"Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing. That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure"."

That's a good question. I'm not sure of the answer, as I've never used that form of argument. Ramen.

Q.E.D. kthxbye :-*

Perhaps, but I doubt the GP is planning on releasing a magazine called "Cooking-Pro".

So you're saying there's a chance? ;)

That's a pretty foggy description... So it isn't necessarily "the creator", as many would say? Is it omniscient? Omnipotent? None of the above?

But wait, replacing "tea set" with god in the above quote, does your argument not still hold?

Huh? Originally, you said:

Given that the FSM and his noodly will is outside our "realm of perception", we cannot in fact conclude that he is any less likely to exist than the god you speak of (by your definition). Actually, given the evidence, I would say it is much more likely that he exists than your amorphous blob. Oh, before you object, remember:

Your argument for the non-existence of the celestial teapot should be equally applicable to the non-existence of god. If you throw that one out the window, and feel it valid to hold a belief to be true simply because it hasn't been proven false, then you should remain equally agnostic to the idea of the FSM -- of course, you apparently aren't.

There are a few problems with your argument, mainly the result of ambiguity in words. Care to provide a definition (or at least some traits) for god? You cannot simply say "he is outside our realm of perception, and is therefor off limits to proof/disproof" -- doesn't this seem a bit childish? What if we replace the celestial teapot with the flying spaghetti monster -- does this still fall under the realm of "observably" unlikely situations? It is not valid to hold a belief, simply because no one has yet proven it false.