I know I know, "clump of cells" and all. But Progressive are incredibly blasé about life in one sense and incredibly dramatic about it in another.
There are strict legal limits on abortion, which basically boil down to 'you can't kill it if it has a brain stem'. Do you eat meat? If so, the animals that you kill are closer to an intelligent being than anything that it's legal to abort. The millions sperm that die every time that you ejaculate are also denied the ability to grow into an adult human, but you don't seem too concerned about those, yet that have precisely the same level of intelligence as an aborted zygote and each one has half of the ability to grow into an adult human. Attempting to claim some kind of moral equivalence between a collection of insentient cells and a living sentient human is insulting to anyone reading your post.
Please tell me how you plan to get rid of them in such a way that disarms criminals equally as well as it disarms law-abiding citizens
You might like to look at the UK, where owning a pistol went from something anyone might do for self defence, to something that you'd only do if you were a member of a shooting club, to something that you basically can't do, over a period of a few decades. One of the ways that this happened was by significantly increasing the penalties around the '60s for crimes where the perpetrator was armed, as well as for illegal trafficking in firearms. If carrying a gun to a crime means that, if you get caught, you'll spent 20 years in prison instead of two, then a lot of criminals will take a knife instead. If a firearm-related murder with an illegal gun leads to the seller going to prison for almost as long as the perpetrator then black marketeers find something lower risk to sell.
It's important not to forget the people who would have died if they didn't have a gun to defend themselves, even if your coworker would have had a better chance if guns were banned.
I think the Rochdale Herald said it best: Bad guys with guns get more practice complain good guys with guns
Aerodynamics sez an F-117A can't fly
An F-117A flies in the same way that a brick strapped to a rocket flies. Aerodynamics has very little to do with it.
Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.
Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).
But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.
It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.
Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.
Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.
This is almost true, though the vast majority of Apple's R&D funding is firmly at the D end of the spectrum. IBM used to spend a lot more than Apple on research, though they've cut down a lot. Microsoft still does (around $5bn/year on MSR). These companies and Google (and Oracle, and so on) all throw grants at universities for research, which Apple doesn't. It wasn't until last the last few months that Apple even published any of their research.
In this respect, it's not really any different from stuff genetic algorithms have been doing for decades. If you have a set of executable tests that can tell if the algorithm is working correctly, then you can evolve something that will pass the tests. Of course, you have absolutely no idea how it will behave on inputs not covered by your tests.
Sometimes. Apple already has their 1 Infinite Loop building and then most of the office buildings nearby along De Anza and a few nearer the middle of town. They're pretty short on space. It makes sense for them to be building a new big building, and the cost difference between building a new boring building and a new shiny building is pretty small. This will let them move a bunch of people who need to collaborate into offices near each other, rather than having them spread across the various De Anza buildings.
From what people were saying when I was at Apple a couple of weeks ago, it's actually coming a bit too late. The company has grown faster than they expected when they started planning and so rather than being able to move everyone from De Anza into IL2, they're having to identify sets of people who need to collaborate and move them, leaving quite a few behind in De Anza. If your company is growing faster than your ability to build office space to house them, that's generally a good sign (though the insane planning permission situation in the Bay Area means that it happens there a lot more often than you'd expect).
Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.