First, it is an observable fact that abiogenesis happened.
It is? How is something that happened (past tense) observable (present tense)?
The question about abiogenesis is not whether it happened, but how it happened. . . . Similarly, we don't know how gravity works.
Similarly? No. Gravity is observable at will. Facts of its effects can be verified by experiment. We can't say, "We know abiogenesis happened because we can reproduce it in the lab." (I just had a thought: do we say, "I observe that this rock is on the ground, therefore we know that it fell from the sky under the influence of gravity?")
A comparison of everyday phenomena (such as gravity) to a scientific theory limited almost exclusively to explaining the past is sketchy at best.
Personally, I say you can probably teach 99.999% of the sciences without even having to address the initial origins of life. It is in the past, is most unlikely to be repeated, and knowledge of such will be required by a vanishingly small number of professional scientists and engineers. As far as I'm concerned you can even teach genetics and natural selection without having to address this.
Maybe both sides should stop throwing around generalizations and anecdotal evidence and find an impartial, quantitative comparison of support costs for the two operating systems when performing similar tasks.
Frankly, so what if "high-value television programming delivered over the air...[is] going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet" [TFA, 4]. It was delivered over the air. Couldn't just about anybody have recorded it anyway?
No! Magic-2 must be built out of discrete transistors
Funny you should mention (and the reason I enjoyed seeing this article): ever since receiving my B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering eight years ago, I've wanted to build some sort of digital device (an alarm clock, say) using discrete transistors . . .
Sorry, poor choice of example. I'll stand by the intent of my comment, though: if you define "best" with some technical measure, don't expect consumers to always pick the "best" option.
When products which use these technologies are released, the market will be able to choose. And one just hopes they choose wisely.
One alse wonders what criteria will be used to determine "wisdom." It seems to me that the consumer market is unlikely to select the "best" technical solution (cf. Betamax versus VHS).
That's why they'll call it the Protection of Open and Free Television Act or some other Orwellian name and attach it to some other feel-good or must-pass legislation.
Close. But as noted by another poster, it has to be a (supposedly) clever acronym (and/or terrorism-related name), too. Maybe they'll call it the:
Beneficial
Reuse
Of
Airwaves/
Defending
Content to
Assure
Secure
Television
In 1974 you could buy a house ($35,000 for a 3br/2ba home in the Seattle area) with a $7/hour job.
Yeah, and a "nickel will buy you a steak and kidney pie, a cup of coffee, a slice of cheesecake and a newsreel... with enough change left over to ride the trolley from Battery Park to the polo grounds."
Weak IP means they can't stop people [...] releas[ing] cheap but interoperable knock-offs, which undercut their market and prevent lock-in.
Exactly: I used to work in a (non-consumer) hardware industry where all players feel pressured to develop and conform to comprehensive multi-source agreements--essentially self-inflicted weak IP. Sure, they have patents on various aspects of their designs, but, fundamentally, there is very little differentiation in the hardware. As a result, these fairly sophisiticated products sell at prices that barely keep even those with the largest market shares in business.
Not to me, personally, and not speaking for anyone else.
Indeed, when it comes to humor, everyone is different. I have a pretty strange sense of humor.
I was recently reading the H2G2 books in bed before I went to sleep each night and was garnering complaints from my wife because my laughing and/or wanting to share bits with her were keeping her awake.
Nearly 1.3 million people have been affected so far this year
While this may be a reasonable estimate, simply adding the numbers of people affected from each case may overstate the problem. There's bound to be some overlap between all the databases.
As a young scamp of 21, I find it hard to believe that anyone got anything done [...] before the [...] internet.
[...] say I wanted to know why some people have two different colored eyes.
As a not-much-older-scamp of 30, I agree with your sentiment. Yet, in these terms, what the internet (and particularly the web) has done is more to make information accessible, not necessarily to improve general productivity (i.e., make it easier to get things done, as you write). Before the web, you probably wouldn't have needed (or even wanted) to know why some people have two different colored eyes enough to bother trying to research it. Now you do, because you can.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
Marketing 101: Cost-based pricing bad.
I find your logic flawed.
First, it is an observable fact that abiogenesis happened.It is? How is something that happened (past tense) observable (present tense)?
The question about abiogenesis is not whether it happened, but how it happened. . . . Similarly, we don't know how gravity works.
Similarly? No. Gravity is observable at will. Facts of its effects can be verified by experiment. We can't say, "We know abiogenesis happened because we can reproduce it in the lab." (I just had a thought: do we say, "I observe that this rock is on the ground, therefore we know that it fell from the sky under the influence of gravity?")
A comparison of everyday phenomena (such as gravity) to a scientific theory limited almost exclusively to explaining the past is sketchy at best.
Personally, I say you can probably teach 99.999% of the sciences without even having to address the initial origins of life. It is in the past, is most unlikely to be repeated, and knowledge of such will be required by a vanishingly small number of professional scientists and engineers. As far as I'm concerned you can even teach genetics and natural selection without having to address this.
Maybe both sides should stop throwing around generalizations and anecdotal evidence and find an impartial, quantitative comparison of support costs for the two operating systems when performing similar tasks.
Frankly, so what if "high-value television programming delivered over the air...[is] going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet" [TFA, 4]. It was delivered over the air. Couldn't just about anybody have recorded it anyway?
Funny you should mention (and the reason I enjoyed seeing this article): ever since receiving my B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering eight years ago, I've wanted to build some sort of digital device (an alarm clock, say) using discrete transistors . . .
Sorry, poor choice of example. I'll stand by the intent of my comment, though: if you define "best" with some technical measure, don't expect consumers to always pick the "best" option.
That's gibibytes (GiB), to you!
One alse wonders what criteria will be used to determine "wisdom." It seems to me that the consumer market is unlikely to select the "best" technical solution (cf. Betamax versus VHS).
Close. But as noted by another poster, it has to be a (supposedly) clever acronym (and/or terrorism-related name), too. Maybe they'll call it the:
Beneficial
Reuse
Of
Airwaves/
Defending
Content to
Assure
Secure
Television
Act.
<nazi value="grammar">
I think you meant, "[...] and the Judge was like "no you di'int."
</nazi>
Or even more subtly: A friend of mine (29) named his son Harrison. I am 30 and named my son Alec.
Yeah, and a "nickel will buy you a steak and kidney pie, a cup of coffee, a slice of cheesecake and a newsreel... with enough change left over to ride the trolley from Battery Park to the polo grounds."
Exactly: I used to work in a (non-consumer) hardware industry where all players feel pressured to develop and conform to comprehensive multi-source agreements--essentially self-inflicted weak IP. Sure, they have patents on various aspects of their designs, but, fundamentally, there is very little differentiation in the hardware. As a result, these fairly sophisiticated products sell at prices that barely keep even those with the largest market shares in business.
Hey, I've got a matchbox full of Garbage Pail Kids cards somewhere . . .
Heck, in my house, EE Times now goes directly from my mailbox to the recycling bin.
I really should cancel my subscription . . .
Lucky you. Mine's only worth two.
I wouldn't say this is true in general.
Perhaps I should be posting anonymously, but I, for one, was a big Three's Company fan.
Let me be the first to say I don't like, but I've never seen the original.
Not a good use of Steve Carell. He could do much better, if you ask me.
As could The MLA Handbook, I suppose.
How about Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Movie?
Indeed, when it comes to humor, everyone is different. I have a pretty strange sense of humor.
I was recently reading the H2G2 books in bed before I went to sleep each night and was garnering complaints from my wife because my laughing and/or wanting to share bits with her were keeping her awake.
While this may be a reasonable estimate, simply adding the numbers of people affected from each case may overstate the problem. There's bound to be some overlap between all the databases.
My mop!
As a young scamp of 21, I find it hard to believe that anyone got anything done [...] before the [...] internet.
[...] say I wanted to know why some people have two different colored eyes.
As a not-much-older-scamp of 30, I agree with your sentiment. Yet, in these terms, what the internet (and particularly the web) has done is more to make information accessible, not necessarily to improve general productivity (i.e., make it easier to get things done, as you write). Before the web, you probably wouldn't have needed (or even wanted) to know why some people have two different colored eyes enough to bother trying to research it. Now you do, because you can.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.048288,-79.13336 3&spn=0.022616,0.036263&t=k&hl=en