I've read some disturbing things on Slashdot, but this turns it up to eleven.
XX = Woman XY = Man
The reality is that it's not nearly as clear cut as you believe. There are individuals with chimerism, in which their bodies contain cells of more than one genotype, i.e., two distinct sets of DNA. See the case of Lydia Fairchild, who was accused of welfare fraud, and prosecutors recommended that her two children be taken into care because testing determined that they weren't related to her, even though she had given birth to them. As she was pregnant with her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at birth and blood samples taken from mother and child. DNA testing revealed that the child was not hers. Incredibly, it was a member of the prosecution team who recalled a similar case in Boston, and contacted her defense team with the information.
And that's only chimerism. Then there are the truly strange cases of individuals with more than two sex chromosomes, such as XXY and XXXY genotypes among others. Genetically speaking, gender should be considered to be a spectrum, with XX at one extreme and XY at the other, with shadings in between.
Apple just does not want ANY competitive technology to shine on iOS. They dropped Flash not due to "performance and battery" issues, but simply put that Flash would eat away at Apple's walled garden.
Really? Then why did Adobe themselves give up on a mobile version of Flash? Flash has severe performance, battery, and security issues, and Adobe had been unable to produce an acceptable mobile version after years of trying. As Jobs put it in his infamous "Thoughts on Flash" piece, Apple had been waiting for years for Adobe to produce a version with acceptable performance, and was no longer willing to wait after all their promises came to naught.
And it's not about competition. It's about control. Apple makes no bones about being loath to rely on any critical technology they don't control themselves. Apple's memory is long, and they remember how many years it took Adobe to release an OS X-native version of Photoshop, one of the flagship applications for Macintosh, and as Jobs said, it was unacceptable for Apple to have to depend on the update schedule of a third party in order to add features to their own products. It's about control of the vertical stack in order to deliver an experience they deem acceptable, not competition. Locking out potential competitors isn't their major focus; it's just icing on the cake.
Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has. His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing. "It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."
I other words they are guilty of price-fixing what other stores may sell the ebooks for
Apple hasn't been shown to be guilty of anything. They've been accused of price fixing, they've vigorously denied it, and their guilt or innocence have yet to be adjudicated. Obviously you've made up your mind as to the facts of the case, never mind the actual facts.
PLUS anticompetitive behaviors such as blocking amazon from target. Guilty guilty guilty.
Except that Apple had nothing to do with it. The decision to yank the Kindle was Target's, and they said so explicitly in a statement. Target was pissed at Amazon for encouraging shoppers to compare prices in physical stores, and said in their statement that they refuse to become showrooms for Amazon.
But nice to hear you venting your hatred by snapping at any anti-Apple sentiment, however untrue. And "Mcirosucks"? Really? It's way beyond stale to refer to Microsoft as "Microsucks", not to mention childish, but you couldn't even spell it right. Pathetic.
It's the Marie-san Celeste
I think you mean the "Maru Celeste".
People buy your products because they are original, innovative and useful. Litigation for profit is not original. Litigation for profit is not innovative. Litigation for profit is not useful.
You and so many others here just don't get it. Apple isn't interested in making money off Android. They want to kill it. The revenues from potential patent licenses, while nice, would be a rounding error on their P and L. Microsoft's motive may be partly for the profit (it's likely that their revenue from licensing patents to Android manufacturers exceeds their revenues from Windows Phone), but Apple is most assuredly not interested. Apple's motive is to chill Android's ascent, or preferably, kill the platform outright. There is apparently genuine anger inside Apple that is directed at Google because of Android; Apple feels that Google blatantly capitalized on Apple's hard work in birthing the iPhone and they're prepared to go to the mattresses to right the perceived wrong.
By making Android handsets more expensive to produce, Apple and Microsoft are adding friction to the adoption of Android, and both companies have large war chests they can use to open more fronts in their war against Google, the true enemy of both. Companies contemplating using Android will think twice before facing the two titans.
And a few days ago Googlighting shows up to spread fear and uncertainty about Google Docs.
The only fear and uncertainty I experienced on watching that embarrassingly cheesy video was the fear that Microsoft would make another one like it, and the uncertainty that they'd ever hire a decent agency to do the job instead of the audio/video nerds from the local community college. Surely that wasn't the work of professionals, was it?
Considering that most of the judge from the 21st century are, at most, 12, and not even lawyers, let alone judges, yet kinda makes this tough.
I salute you sir; nicely done. Although the disturbing thought did occur to me that perhaps the GP was in fact calling for the reinstatement of nineteenth century judges to adjudicate these newfangled matters.
Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser