What are you trying to say? If the analogy is not perfect, that is fine. He explained after the analogy exactly what he was trying to say. Do you disagree with what was said? Do you have a good reason to believe that if this cable is built, then the solar power plants will be built as well? Or, that they won't just buind a token solar power plant and after that only fossil fuel powered ones? Do you only do ad hominem or can you actually intelligently debate the issues?
How is it positive to spend a lot of money on an undersea cable to get power from coal and gas fired power plants in North Africa? It seems like it would be much more cost-efficient to just build the plants in Europe.
If 20 years from now, this excellent undersea cable terminates in the middle of the Sahara at a cheap coal-fired power plant, is this project (and the half trillion that went into in) supposed to be considered a success? I wouldn't consider it a success. I am glad some people are considering ahead of time how to make sure that doesn't happen.
The reason that these countries are considering spending tons of money is to get a renewable energy source. They are not planning on spending all that money to buy coal produced electricity from Africa. If it ends up that way, a lot of people are going to be pissed. So, they are trying to make sure it doesn't happen. Seems reasonable to me.
I find your definition of "single place" hysterical. That is a pretty big basket. The Sahara Desert is almost as big as the US and is in about 10 different countries. And while the Sahara might be the most economical place to start, it does not have a monopoly on sunlight so I think its possible solar power plants could be built elsewhere (especially after their cost comes down from economies of scale once there are a bunch put into the Sahara Desert).
Someone needs to focus on the negative. There needs to be a devil's advocate. For example, if the government spends tons of public money (and I consider half a trillion "tons") on creating this power cable with the promise (return on public investment) of getting more clean energy, then it had better lead to clean energy. I could definitely see a possibility that a bunch of coal-fired power plants are built in the middle of the desert to supply power to Europe because the coal power plants are cheaper. And the public once again just gets screwed. No solution is perfect. To see if a project is worthwhile you have to weigh the positives and the negatives. Which means you have to talk about the positives and the negatives.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the rest of the world has been messing with (and messing up) the middle east much more recently than the crusades. Israel is the biggest example. Or, look at the causes of the Iranian Revolution to see how the US and Britain meddled with middle eastern governments (they overturned a democracy to support a monarchy). Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. These aren't just long past wrongs. These are things that happened within the lifetime of most of the citizens and leadership. They have a right to remember them. You should probably do a little remembering yourself.
Technological knowledge and social/political knowledge are very different. With technology, you just teach the person the right answer. With social/political, you have to teach the person how to find the right answer. The difference is between teaching someone how to make a microchip versus teaching someone how to decide who is the correct politician to represent them. Or, teaching someone how to use nuclear power (for peaceful purposes and for weapons) versus how to use that power responsibly (not nuking all your enemies). Teaching someone a fact is easy. Teaching someone a way of thinking is a lot more difficult.
Whether or not one thinks that the copyright holder ought to have such exclusivity in the first place is largely irrelevant
I disagree. This is really the crux of the issue. It seems that a large portion of the population is willing to violate that exclusivity. This isn't just the fringe that have a loose grasp of what is socially acceptable. These are normal, ethical, law-abiding people who, if they saw you drop your wallet, would give it back to you not because they would be arrested if they didn't, but because it is the right thing to do. It is socially acceptable to download music. So, either the society or the law needs to change. The two need to be in line. Otherwise you are just creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
And, suing or arresting people will not help matters. That will not change society's view of the issue (though it could change the law to match society if they are found in favor of the defendant). The "you wouldn't steal a car" commercials are an attempt at a correct solution by changing society's view of the issue, but I don't think they are working.
So, are you claiming that the patent application is now correctly priced? Why shouldn't we make it lower? Are some small businesses priced out of the market? If it were changed to $0.01 per application, would small business owners then thrive? Or would they be strangled by the plethora of patent trolls that popped up? Are we already strangled by the plethora of patent trolls out there? It is easy to say "change is bad", but is the status quo not already bad?
If the purpose of the fee hike is to reduce filings, then it stands to reason that they will be too high for someone,
True. But does that mean it will be small business owners? Or, small business owners who are patent trolls? If I am filing 100 different applications for crap patents, then doubling or tripling the fee will make a big difference. But, if I have two or three good ideas on which I am basing my business, then a few hundred more dollars per is not going to make a very big difference.
And clearly, those affected will be the inventors at the lower end of the economic scale.
If it is a good idea that you can make money off of, then you should be able to get the money to patent it. Even $1000 should be negligible if it is a good patent. If not, then you shouldn't be patenting it.
You make good points and I am sorry if I offended you. There are good academics out there, I stereotyped on the bad ones (which is what I believe I was responding to). The following is what set me off...
fundamentally unproveable, sorry but I do exact sciences
This is an opinion that I have found in a lot of academics. Some people do not have the luxury of exact sciences. Also, I have found that when you get out in the real world, exact sciences have a habit of becoming less exact.
The fact that this person decided that because he only deals in exact sciences, that everyone else should be held to the same standards is just mental laziness in my opinion. And the way it was used borders on obstructionism. Just because you happen to know a lot about your subject, does not mean that you can judge the work of someone who works in a different subject. Especially disparaging the quality of their work when their experimental procedures will be much different than yours.
But, some people (actually, looking back at it, most people) might think that I am disparaging all academics. I did not intend for that to be the case. I just have a problem with that particular mindset which seems to be more prevalent in academics.
You are right. My comment might have been a little to disparaging on academics. And I do not have a dislike for academic researchers. They are very good at what they do. Academic research is necessary and a great many things come from it. But, they need to know their limitations.
As I said, I am an engineer. Engineers tend toward perfectionists. We are always fighting with the sales guys to get more time on a project. But, if we take too much time, then no one will want to buy our products. So, I have to think of the trade-off between the consequences of delaying putting a product to market and the advantages of doing so.
Academic researchers tend to have less of a real-world view of things. The scientific review process tends to be a slow and bureaucratic one. And for good reason. If you say something is a scientific "law", then it needs to be sound. But, if the AGW proponents are correct, we do not have time to work out every detail. By the time we work out all of the science, the damage could already be done. Decisions must be made now. We need to weigh all the data, weigh the risks, and make a decision.
As our information changes in the future, we can change our actions to reflect it. But I dismiss the argument that we need absolute proof that global warming exists. Because, they will not provide absolute proof that it doesn't. I am not saying we should put into our textbooks that Global Warming is a fact (which should go through the full scientific process). I am saying we should make policy decisions now even knowing that the science could have problems. Because, doing nothing is "making a choice". And either choice could possibly end in disaster.
The problem is, there will never be enough proof for you. There is not going to be a "Law of Global Warming". There will always only be a theory, because the Earth is too complicated for us (at least right now) to understand the implications of change.
The way to derail the AGW debate is to have a more supported hypothesis than theirs. Have a group of scientists gather all the data and support the hypothesis that temperatures have not been increasing. Have them publish in peer reviewed journals and be able to defend their work. Why hasn't this been done?
I keep hearing people claim that the only reason that we have the AGW debate is because people are going to make money off of it. Is there no money to be made off of defeating it? I know the oil and coal companies are barely scraping by right now (with their billion dollar profits), but maybe they would be willing to throw in a bit of money.
Don't tell me why I am wrong, tell me why you are right. In an argument like this where there are no absolute right vs wrongs, it is all based on assumptions and models, it is easy to attack the science. Come up with your own hypothesis and convince people it is better (with supporting facts) than the current AGW hypothesis. Then I will listen. Play fair. Give me the ability to attack your science the same way you attack mine. So that the public can make an informed decision. But, you are not going to do this because there is much more evidence FOR AGW than against it. So, you have to resort to FUD.
We have to make a decision here that will seriously affect what happens in the future. We can either take the AGW hypothesis at face value and work to decrease greenhouse emissions and possibly cause long-term damage to the world economy (though I disagree that this will necessarily cause damage. it always depends on implementation) or we can decide to do nothing and civilization as we know might possibly be radically changed due to climate change. You claim that we cannot choose the AGW side of things because we don't have enough proof. But doing nothing is CHOOSING the anti-AGW argument. How much proof do we have supporting that choice? Why does only one side have to survive this burden of "proof"?
Think for yourself. Don't be a pawn to corporate interests (on either side).
Or, it is just a media which is looking for ratings and not facts. And a public that is too ADD and ignorant to care about checking actual sources for themselves. But I am sure the conspiracy theory makes more sense.
the deplorable conduct evidenced by the CRU emails
Why do people always bring up the emails? Are there no other facts in this case? I don't care what someone writes in a PERSONAL email. I have said some stupid stuff in public, much less in private when I did not think that I would have to defend myself. What did they DO (facts would be nice) that justifies you saying they engaged in "deplorable conduct"? If all you care about is what people say, then you must think politicians are the best and most honorable people in the world.
He is right. The emails don't matter. It matters what the scientists actually did. It was his job, as part of the committee to make sure that the accusations that people made after quote-mining the emails were investigated. Apparently, they investigated the accusations and determined that there was no conspiracy. While the scientists apparently need to be more careful about what they say in their PRIVATE emails, there is no evidence that they did anything unethical.
When two people have a PRIVATE CONVERSATION they are allowed to make jokes with each other. Or, even say things that they wish they could do, but would not because they are upstanding people. While that is not a joke, it is not a statement of guilt. And there is no black line between "joke" and "we should do..." meant as "i wish we could do...". There is continuum.
Now, I don't know if it was a joke or if it was "i wish we could do..." or if he is just a bad evil person. But, we can determine what his actions were. So, instead of casting aspirations on his character based upon private conversations where we cannot say for sure what the intent was, maybe we should judge him based upon his actions.
"your result is correct but your method is completely wrong"
When you put quotes around something, I (maybe mistakenly) assume that you are quoting someone. Could you cite who you are quoting?
I am wondering if you are paraphrasing (in quotes?) from TFS...
The statistical methods used, though arriving at correct results, are not optimal, and it is recommended future studies involve professional statisticians if possible;
If that is the case, then they did not say the statistical methods they used were "wrong", just that there were other options that might have been better. You are just spreading FUD, which is not helpful in a debate where you are trying to find the truth.
Your response makes it obvious that you are an academic. Academics don't have to produce anything (besides words). I am an Engineer at a private company. I have to put a product out that works. There are time limits. If I am not sure how it works, I can't say "well, lets just look at this for another 30 years and make sure we get the math correct". I have to take the facts that I do know, make assumptions, and act on them.
The science is never going to be good enough for you, because everything is based on assumptions. The "Theory of Gravity" is wrong. It breaks down at very small distances. But, in the real world, I have to assume that it is good enough and use it to get my work done. Other people have told me, "Well, we can't prove global warming correct, so we should just wait another 30 years until the science works itself out." This is very convenient because you don't have to do anything. If in 30 years the earth is screwed, you can just say that now we have the science. If it is not, you can say you are right. But I will not accept that. Don't tell me why I am wrong, tell me why you are right. What is your alternate theory, and where is your supporting evidence. PROVE that my theory is worse than yours. But, you can't. All you are is an obstructionist. You don't have a proposal that you are willing to put anything behind (your career, your reputation, your future). All you have is your proposal that we don't know anything, so we shouldn't do anything. That proposal I do not accept.
This is also apparent from your comment about the big bang. You just say it is wrong. What is your alternative? It is not so easy when you have to support something instead of just sitting back and telling everyone else why they are wrong.
I am going to modify an age old adage...
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And then tell the people who are 'doing' why they are wrong."
I am not GP, but from what I understand, from the facts we do have, the "Big Bang" fits the facts the best. All other theories are "less correct" than the big bang theory (though, "correctness" can't be quantified so it is mainly based on consensus). I don't think any real scientist, though, would say that they believe the big bang is "the way it happened". It is just the best we have so far. But, I do not know if GP is saying we should just throw up our hands and say we don't have any theories, or if he has a pet theory that he likes better.
For one, I was only talking about the PC market. Smartphones still have a life ahead of them. Also, I am only talking about hardware. I think that once someone creates a foolproof voice recognition software, then it will be able to run on today's PCs. I could make you a "desk sized monitor" with todays technology, and your current PC could probably run it. It would just be very expensive. I think there are still advances to be made in the PC area. But, there is less room for innovation because the technology is basically getting "mature" so people are not willing to spend tons of money on the new "cutting edge" product.
I have seen this for a few years now. My laptop does everything I want it to. I don't feel a need to go buy a new and better laptop. Same for my desktop. It could do some things a little better, but I cannot think of an improvement that would convince me to go out and spend 2k on a new laptop.
PC's are here to stay. People will probably be using them for quite a while. But, do they need to get better? Most of the advances in computers right now are happening in the cloud (not requiring faster computers) as opposed to on the personal computer (usually requires faster computers). So, people have no reason to pay tons of money for a new computer. I have not upgraded my PC in years, and feel no reason to. As TFS says, it is becoming a commodity. Commodities don't have very big profit margins. Apple does not want to be in a commodity market. They want to be in an innovative market where they can use their technical prowess to make a better product and / or (more importantly) use their amazing marketing department to make people THINK that their products are better. They aren't shifting their focus from PCs because the PC is going away. They are shifting their focus from PCs because that is no longer where the money is.
The point is not that all computing will go to the cloud. The problem is that computers are becoming a commodity. Innovation is slowing down because, for most consumers (including businesses), they don't need their computers to get any faster / get better features. There is no way for computer sellers to stay "ahead" of their competitors, so profit margins shrink. You can still make a profit in commodity markets, but not the profits an innovative company like Apple has come to expects. So, they are looking ahead to other areas where they can be innovative and make the large profits.
The problem there is that you're unlinking the elements.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Hopefully I will address it below.
In the case of "Progress?" it's akin to considering the portrait and the text 2 seperate works.
Since you're only commenting on the text "progress" and not on the portrait(a separate work) then the portrait couldn't be used in the parody.
I disagree. Together they can be taken as a single work. If "All she wants to do is tax" had originally been created as a response to an ad by the democrat where "All she want to do is dance" was played in the background, then that would be ok, though questionable depending on the implementation. If he had posted the theoretical original commercial with the words changed to the lyrics of "All she wants to do is tax", then it would definitely be fine. Because, he would be commenting on the original work (the commercial) which included the song. But, there is no "original work" which he is commenting on (as far as I know or have found). He is just stealing the work for his own political ends, and then trying to find an excuse for his thievery by saying it was somehow a "parody". There is a fine line I am drawing for you here, but it is a distinct one.
It SHOULD be protected, I'm not arguing against that at all.
I just think that if the case in TFA was extended then it wouldn't be.
This is the crux of the matter. You seem to think this ruling would changes current laws a little (reduces the rights of political satirists) while I think it would just defines the edges more clearly. Regardless, even if you are correct, that does not mean it will be taken to the extreme. It is like Glenn Beck and his circles (if you don't know what I am talking about, then you should watch the daily show). He says that the country is moving in a socialist direction, so therefore we will eventually become communist. That is just not the case. Talk about what is now, not what will be if we continue in this same direction for the next 10 years. While someone may come along after this ruling (if it is found in favor of the plaintiff) and try to push the law further, it would then be the job of the judiciary to define the line even further. But, you can't decide laws based upon trying to slow the movement of common law. The laws are decided based upon the merits of the individual case, and common law sorts itself out.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you trying to say? If the analogy is not perfect, that is fine. He explained after the analogy exactly what he was trying to say. Do you disagree with what was said? Do you have a good reason to believe that if this cable is built, then the solar power plants will be built as well? Or, that they won't just buind a token solar power plant and after that only fossil fuel powered ones? Do you only do ad hominem or can you actually intelligently debate the issues?
How is it positive to spend a lot of money on an undersea cable to get power from coal and gas fired power plants in North Africa? It seems like it would be much more cost-efficient to just build the plants in Europe.
If 20 years from now, this excellent undersea cable terminates in the middle of the Sahara at a cheap coal-fired power plant, is this project (and the half trillion that went into in) supposed to be considered a success? I wouldn't consider it a success. I am glad some people are considering ahead of time how to make sure that doesn't happen.
The reason that these countries are considering spending tons of money is to get a renewable energy source. They are not planning on spending all that money to buy coal produced electricity from Africa. If it ends up that way, a lot of people are going to be pissed. So, they are trying to make sure it doesn't happen. Seems reasonable to me.
I find your definition of "single place" hysterical. That is a pretty big basket. The Sahara Desert is almost as big as the US and is in about 10 different countries. And while the Sahara might be the most economical place to start, it does not have a monopoly on sunlight so I think its possible solar power plants could be built elsewhere (especially after their cost comes down from economies of scale once there are a bunch put into the Sahara Desert).
Someone needs to focus on the negative. There needs to be a devil's advocate. For example, if the government spends tons of public money (and I consider half a trillion "tons") on creating this power cable with the promise (return on public investment) of getting more clean energy, then it had better lead to clean energy. I could definitely see a possibility that a bunch of coal-fired power plants are built in the middle of the desert to supply power to Europe because the coal power plants are cheaper. And the public once again just gets screwed. No solution is perfect. To see if a project is worthwhile you have to weigh the positives and the negatives. Which means you have to talk about the positives and the negatives.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the rest of the world has been messing with (and messing up) the middle east much more recently than the crusades. Israel is the biggest example. Or, look at the causes of the Iranian Revolution to see how the US and Britain meddled with middle eastern governments (they overturned a democracy to support a monarchy). Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. These aren't just long past wrongs. These are things that happened within the lifetime of most of the citizens and leadership. They have a right to remember them. You should probably do a little remembering yourself.
Technological knowledge and social/political knowledge are very different. With technology, you just teach the person the right answer. With social/political, you have to teach the person how to find the right answer. The difference is between teaching someone how to make a microchip versus teaching someone how to decide who is the correct politician to represent them. Or, teaching someone how to use nuclear power (for peaceful purposes and for weapons) versus how to use that power responsibly (not nuking all your enemies). Teaching someone a fact is easy. Teaching someone a way of thinking is a lot more difficult.
Whether or not one thinks that the copyright holder ought to have such exclusivity in the first place is largely irrelevant
I disagree. This is really the crux of the issue. It seems that a large portion of the population is willing to violate that exclusivity. This isn't just the fringe that have a loose grasp of what is socially acceptable. These are normal, ethical, law-abiding people who, if they saw you drop your wallet, would give it back to you not because they would be arrested if they didn't, but because it is the right thing to do. It is socially acceptable to download music. So, either the society or the law needs to change. The two need to be in line. Otherwise you are just creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
And, suing or arresting people will not help matters. That will not change society's view of the issue (though it could change the law to match society if they are found in favor of the defendant). The "you wouldn't steal a car" commercials are an attempt at a correct solution by changing society's view of the issue, but I don't think they are working.
So, are you claiming that the patent application is now correctly priced? Why shouldn't we make it lower? Are some small businesses priced out of the market? If it were changed to $0.01 per application, would small business owners then thrive? Or would they be strangled by the plethora of patent trolls that popped up? Are we already strangled by the plethora of patent trolls out there? It is easy to say "change is bad", but is the status quo not already bad?
If the purpose of the fee hike is to reduce filings, then it stands to reason that they will be too high for someone,
True. But does that mean it will be small business owners? Or, small business owners who are patent trolls? If I am filing 100 different applications for crap patents, then doubling or tripling the fee will make a big difference. But, if I have two or three good ideas on which I am basing my business, then a few hundred more dollars per is not going to make a very big difference.
And clearly, those affected will be the inventors at the lower end of the economic scale.
If it is a good idea that you can make money off of, then you should be able to get the money to patent it. Even $1000 should be negligible if it is a good patent. If not, then you shouldn't be patenting it.
You make good points and I am sorry if I offended you. There are good academics out there, I stereotyped on the bad ones (which is what I believe I was responding to). The following is what set me off...
fundamentally unproveable, sorry but I do exact sciences
This is an opinion that I have found in a lot of academics. Some people do not have the luxury of exact sciences. Also, I have found that when you get out in the real world, exact sciences have a habit of becoming less exact.
The fact that this person decided that because he only deals in exact sciences, that everyone else should be held to the same standards is just mental laziness in my opinion. And the way it was used borders on obstructionism. Just because you happen to know a lot about your subject, does not mean that you can judge the work of someone who works in a different subject. Especially disparaging the quality of their work when their experimental procedures will be much different than yours.
But, some people (actually, looking back at it, most people) might think that I am disparaging all academics. I did not intend for that to be the case. I just have a problem with that particular mindset which seems to be more prevalent in academics.
You are right. My comment might have been a little to disparaging on academics. And I do not have a dislike for academic researchers. They are very good at what they do. Academic research is necessary and a great many things come from it. But, they need to know their limitations.
As I said, I am an engineer. Engineers tend toward perfectionists. We are always fighting with the sales guys to get more time on a project. But, if we take too much time, then no one will want to buy our products. So, I have to think of the trade-off between the consequences of delaying putting a product to market and the advantages of doing so.
Academic researchers tend to have less of a real-world view of things. The scientific review process tends to be a slow and bureaucratic one. And for good reason. If you say something is a scientific "law", then it needs to be sound. But, if the AGW proponents are correct, we do not have time to work out every detail. By the time we work out all of the science, the damage could already be done. Decisions must be made now. We need to weigh all the data, weigh the risks, and make a decision.
As our information changes in the future, we can change our actions to reflect it. But I dismiss the argument that we need absolute proof that global warming exists. Because, they will not provide absolute proof that it doesn't. I am not saying we should put into our textbooks that Global Warming is a fact (which should go through the full scientific process). I am saying we should make policy decisions now even knowing that the science could have problems. Because, doing nothing is "making a choice". And either choice could possibly end in disaster.
The problem is, there will never be enough proof for you. There is not going to be a "Law of Global Warming". There will always only be a theory, because the Earth is too complicated for us (at least right now) to understand the implications of change.
The way to derail the AGW debate is to have a more supported hypothesis than theirs. Have a group of scientists gather all the data and support the hypothesis that temperatures have not been increasing. Have them publish in peer reviewed journals and be able to defend their work. Why hasn't this been done?
I keep hearing people claim that the only reason that we have the AGW debate is because people are going to make money off of it. Is there no money to be made off of defeating it? I know the oil and coal companies are barely scraping by right now (with their billion dollar profits), but maybe they would be willing to throw in a bit of money.
Don't tell me why I am wrong, tell me why you are right. In an argument like this where there are no absolute right vs wrongs, it is all based on assumptions and models, it is easy to attack the science. Come up with your own hypothesis and convince people it is better (with supporting facts) than the current AGW hypothesis. Then I will listen. Play fair. Give me the ability to attack your science the same way you attack mine. So that the public can make an informed decision. But, you are not going to do this because there is much more evidence FOR AGW than against it. So, you have to resort to FUD.
We have to make a decision here that will seriously affect what happens in the future. We can either take the AGW hypothesis at face value and work to decrease greenhouse emissions and possibly cause long-term damage to the world economy (though I disagree that this will necessarily cause damage. it always depends on implementation) or we can decide to do nothing and civilization as we know might possibly be radically changed due to climate change. You claim that we cannot choose the AGW side of things because we don't have enough proof. But doing nothing is CHOOSING the anti-AGW argument. How much proof do we have supporting that choice? Why does only one side have to survive this burden of "proof"?
Think for yourself. Don't be a pawn to corporate interests (on either side).
Or, it is just a media which is looking for ratings and not facts. And a public that is too ADD and ignorant to care about checking actual sources for themselves. But I am sure the conspiracy theory makes more sense.
the deplorable conduct evidenced by the CRU emails
Why do people always bring up the emails? Are there no other facts in this case? I don't care what someone writes in a PERSONAL email. I have said some stupid stuff in public, much less in private when I did not think that I would have to defend myself. What did they DO (facts would be nice) that justifies you saying they engaged in "deplorable conduct"? If all you care about is what people say, then you must think politicians are the best and most honorable people in the world.
He is right. The emails don't matter. It matters what the scientists actually did. It was his job, as part of the committee to make sure that the accusations that people made after quote-mining the emails were investigated. Apparently, they investigated the accusations and determined that there was no conspiracy. While the scientists apparently need to be more careful about what they say in their PRIVATE emails, there is no evidence that they did anything unethical.
When two people have a PRIVATE CONVERSATION they are allowed to make jokes with each other. Or, even say things that they wish they could do, but would not because they are upstanding people. While that is not a joke, it is not a statement of guilt. And there is no black line between "joke" and "we should do ..." meant as "i wish we could do ...". There is continuum.
Now, I don't know if it was a joke or if it was "i wish we could do ..." or if he is just a bad evil person. But, we can determine what his actions were. So, instead of casting aspirations on his character based upon private conversations where we cannot say for sure what the intent was, maybe we should judge him based upon his actions.
"your result is correct but your method is completely wrong"
When you put quotes around something, I (maybe mistakenly) assume that you are quoting someone. Could you cite who you are quoting?
I am wondering if you are paraphrasing (in quotes?) from TFS...
The statistical methods used, though arriving at correct results, are not optimal, and it is recommended future studies involve professional statisticians if possible;
If that is the case, then they did not say the statistical methods they used were "wrong", just that there were other options that might have been better. You are just spreading FUD, which is not helpful in a debate where you are trying to find the truth.
Your response makes it obvious that you are an academic. Academics don't have to produce anything (besides words). I am an Engineer at a private company. I have to put a product out that works. There are time limits. If I am not sure how it works, I can't say "well, lets just look at this for another 30 years and make sure we get the math correct". I have to take the facts that I do know, make assumptions, and act on them.
The science is never going to be good enough for you, because everything is based on assumptions. The "Theory of Gravity" is wrong. It breaks down at very small distances. But, in the real world, I have to assume that it is good enough and use it to get my work done. Other people have told me, "Well, we can't prove global warming correct, so we should just wait another 30 years until the science works itself out." This is very convenient because you don't have to do anything. If in 30 years the earth is screwed, you can just say that now we have the science. If it is not, you can say you are right. But I will not accept that. Don't tell me why I am wrong, tell me why you are right. What is your alternate theory, and where is your supporting evidence. PROVE that my theory is worse than yours. But, you can't. All you are is an obstructionist. You don't have a proposal that you are willing to put anything behind (your career, your reputation, your future). All you have is your proposal that we don't know anything, so we shouldn't do anything. That proposal I do not accept.
This is also apparent from your comment about the big bang. You just say it is wrong. What is your alternative? It is not so easy when you have to support something instead of just sitting back and telling everyone else why they are wrong.
I am going to modify an age old adage...
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And then tell the people who are 'doing' why they are wrong."
I am not GP, but from what I understand, from the facts we do have, the "Big Bang" fits the facts the best. All other theories are "less correct" than the big bang theory (though, "correctness" can't be quantified so it is mainly based on consensus). I don't think any real scientist, though, would say that they believe the big bang is "the way it happened". It is just the best we have so far. But, I do not know if GP is saying we should just throw up our hands and say we don't have any theories, or if he has a pet theory that he likes better.
For one, I was only talking about the PC market. Smartphones still have a life ahead of them. Also, I am only talking about hardware. I think that once someone creates a foolproof voice recognition software, then it will be able to run on today's PCs. I could make you a "desk sized monitor" with todays technology, and your current PC could probably run it. It would just be very expensive. I think there are still advances to be made in the PC area. But, there is less room for innovation because the technology is basically getting "mature" so people are not willing to spend tons of money on the new "cutting edge" product.
I have seen this for a few years now. My laptop does everything I want it to. I don't feel a need to go buy a new and better laptop. Same for my desktop. It could do some things a little better, but I cannot think of an improvement that would convince me to go out and spend 2k on a new laptop.
PC's are here to stay. People will probably be using them for quite a while. But, do they need to get better? Most of the advances in computers right now are happening in the cloud (not requiring faster computers) as opposed to on the personal computer (usually requires faster computers). So, people have no reason to pay tons of money for a new computer. I have not upgraded my PC in years, and feel no reason to. As TFS says, it is becoming a commodity. Commodities don't have very big profit margins. Apple does not want to be in a commodity market. They want to be in an innovative market where they can use their technical prowess to make a better product and / or (more importantly) use their amazing marketing department to make people THINK that their products are better. They aren't shifting their focus from PCs because the PC is going away. They are shifting their focus from PCs because that is no longer where the money is.
The point is not that all computing will go to the cloud. The problem is that computers are becoming a commodity. Innovation is slowing down because, for most consumers (including businesses), they don't need their computers to get any faster / get better features. There is no way for computer sellers to stay "ahead" of their competitors, so profit margins shrink. You can still make a profit in commodity markets, but not the profits an innovative company like Apple has come to expects. So, they are looking ahead to other areas where they can be innovative and make the large profits.
The problem there is that you're unlinking the elements.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Hopefully I will address it below.
In the case of "Progress?" it's akin to considering the portrait and the text 2 seperate works.
Since you're only commenting on the text "progress" and not on the portrait(a separate work) then the portrait couldn't be used in the parody.
I disagree. Together they can be taken as a single work. If "All she wants to do is tax" had originally been created as a response to an ad by the democrat where "All she want to do is dance" was played in the background, then that would be ok, though questionable depending on the implementation. If he had posted the theoretical original commercial with the words changed to the lyrics of "All she wants to do is tax", then it would definitely be fine. Because, he would be commenting on the original work (the commercial) which included the song. But, there is no "original work" which he is commenting on (as far as I know or have found). He is just stealing the work for his own political ends, and then trying to find an excuse for his thievery by saying it was somehow a "parody". There is a fine line I am drawing for you here, but it is a distinct one.
It SHOULD be protected, I'm not arguing against that at all. I just think that if the case in TFA was extended then it wouldn't be.
This is the crux of the matter. You seem to think this ruling would changes current laws a little (reduces the rights of political satirists) while I think it would just defines the edges more clearly. Regardless, even if you are correct, that does not mean it will be taken to the extreme. It is like Glenn Beck and his circles (if you don't know what I am talking about, then you should watch the daily show). He says that the country is moving in a socialist direction, so therefore we will eventually become communist. That is just not the case. Talk about what is now, not what will be if we continue in this same direction for the next 10 years. While someone may come along after this ruling (if it is found in favor of the plaintiff) and try to push the law further, it would then be the job of the judiciary to define the line even further. But, you can't decide laws based upon trying to slow the movement of common law. The laws are decided based upon the merits of the individual case, and common law sorts itself out.