Particularly for sucralose, which is 600x as sweet as sugar. 1mg/ml would be sickly sweet. I generally use 0.1mg/ml in making my own sugar-free cordials (I'm diabetic).
I would note that Tyson's suggestion was "weight of evidence", not "science". Science is not the only discipline based upon "weight of evidence", so are a wide range of other fields, including engineering, logistics, and (one would hope) the more grounded and less speculative areas of such fields as economics and Guhin's own sociology.
What is the alternative to basing decisions on weight of evidence? Basing them on wishful thinking?
The freedom from a single standard that bninja penguin demands is hardly costless.
Firstly, learning a new GUI imposes a cost (in terms of time to master). As somebody who's used about half a dozen GUIs I would say none of them were sufficiently superior that I'd want to change to it simply for the improved interface.
Secondly, multiple GUIs impose a cost on app developers who have to ensure their apps are compatible.
The obvious solution is to develop a single GUI standard and a single default GUI under this standard. This should ensure that developers can easily ensure that all apps work with at least one common GUI and that there is a high probability that they will work with all GUIs that comply with the standard.
None of this would interfere with the freedom of choice that bninja penguin demands - as anybody who wishes to develop a GUI (standard-compliant or otherwise) is still free to do so - it is in fact impossible to prevent them from doing so, given the nature of Open Source.
because his administration is hesitant to interfere with market forces
Firstly, may I point out that the Bush administration's stance on steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies shows that it has no problem with interfering with market forces.
Secondly, may I point out that Microsoft has been found by the courts to be a Monopoly. This means that it has substantial market power and that "market forces"="Microsoft's will" in this particular market.
So what you are really saying is that the Bush administration is hesitant to interfere with Microsoft's will.
Well, I suppose that's accurate.;)
I just looked at a Babel translation of the Toshiba blurb (http://www.toshiba.co.jp/mobileav/audio/meg50js/p roducts.htm).
It appears that the Gigabyte has the following features:
lithium ion battery
aluminium case
USB 1.1-compatible
On the advantages of PCMCIA vs Firewire vs USB-2, may I point out that the number of laptops with PCMCIA far exceeds the numbers of computers with Firewire and USB-2 combined
The question is whether Hollywood has the ability to price discriminate. Whether they can enforce charging a different price to video libraries and retail, or whether they have to charge the same price (be it $100 or $20).
Cinematic release is not an issue for the vast majority of movies that were released long before DVD came into existence, but are still region-coded.
How does region-coding allow for varying censorship when you lump Australia in with South America (entirely different cultures likely to have different social standards and censorship)?
It is just as easy to pirate a zoned DVD as an unzoned one (and I suspect pirates are quite capable of rezoning them as well).
"Intellectual property" is only "property" and only has value because a government decides to make it so. Exclusive right to sell tacos would also be "property" and have value if a government decided to grant such a right. This is NOT a valid argument for creating such a right.
Intellectual property rights are government granted monopolies. Monopolies are generally economically harmful and should be encouraged only where there are sufficient countervailing benefits (eg extra innovation) to compensate for this harm. Where such benefits don't exist (eg because the innovation would occur anyway - as is likely with software and business method patents) the monopoly should not be granted.
I read a long while back that RAMBUS modified its patent midstream. Isn't it conceivable that RAMBUS found out what JEDEC was propossing as an open standard and modified an existing patent application to include this?
This "justification" of region codes does not match the evidence. If protecting cinematic releases were the only reason for region coding then you'd expect only DVDs of recently relseased movies to be region-coded.
This is not the case -- the vast majority of DVDs have region encoding, including those that have long since left the cinemas (and even some from the first half of the twentieth century).
So it would seem that this "justification" is merely a fig leaf to cover anticompetitive behaviour, least it appear too blatant.
Slashdot Mirror
Particularly for sucralose, which is 600x as sweet as sugar. 1mg/ml would be sickly sweet. I generally use 0.1mg/ml in making my own sugar-free cordials (I'm diabetic).
! emphatically agree.
I would note that Tyson's suggestion was "weight of evidence", not "science". Science is not the only discipline based upon "weight of evidence", so are a wide range of other fields, including engineering, logistics, and (one would hope) the more grounded and less speculative areas of such fields as economics and Guhin's own sociology.
What is the alternative to basing decisions on weight of evidence? Basing them on wishful thinking?
The freedom from a single standard that bninja penguin demands is hardly costless.
Firstly, learning a new GUI imposes a cost (in terms of time to master). As somebody who's used about half a dozen GUIs I would say none of them were sufficiently superior that I'd want to change to it simply for the improved interface.
Secondly, multiple GUIs impose a cost on app developers who have to ensure their apps are compatible.
The obvious solution is to develop a single GUI standard and a single default GUI under this standard. This should ensure that developers can easily ensure that all apps work with at least one common GUI and that there is a high probability that they will work with all GUIs that comply with the standard.
None of this would interfere with the freedom of choice that bninja penguin demands - as anybody who wishes to develop a GUI (standard-compliant or otherwise) is still free to do so - it is in fact impossible to prevent them from doing so, given the nature of Open Source.
You might want to look at the Fujitsu P-1000 series then. They're about the same size, but considerably cheaper (as little as US$1100).
because his administration is hesitant to interfere with market forces
;)
Firstly, may I point out that the Bush administration's stance on steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies shows that it has no problem with interfering with market forces.
Secondly, may I point out that Microsoft has been found by the courts to be a Monopoly. This means that it has substantial market power and that "market forces"="Microsoft's will" in this particular market.
So what you are really saying is that the Bush administration is hesitant to interfere with Microsoft's will.
Well, I suppose that's accurate.
I just looked at a Babel translation of the Toshiba blurb (http://www.toshiba.co.jp/mobileav/audio/meg50js/p roducts.htm).
It appears that the Gigabyte has the following features:
lithium ion battery
aluminium case
USB 1.1-compatible
On the advantages of PCMCIA vs Firewire vs USB-2, may I point out that the number of laptops with PCMCIA far exceeds the numbers of computers with Firewire and USB-2 combined
The question is whether Hollywood has the ability to price discriminate. Whether they can enforce charging a different price to video libraries and retail, or whether they have to charge the same price (be it $100 or $20).
The "publishers side" is mostly disinformation.
Cinematic release is not an issue for the vast majority of movies that were released long before DVD came into existence, but are still region-coded.
How does region-coding allow for varying censorship when you lump Australia in with South America (entirely different cultures likely to have different social standards and censorship)?
It is just as easy to pirate a zoned DVD as an unzoned one (and I suspect pirates are quite capable of rezoning them as well).
"Intellectual property" is only "property" and only has value because a government decides to make it so. Exclusive right to sell tacos would also be "property" and have value if a government decided to grant such a right. This is NOT a valid argument for creating such a right. Intellectual property rights are government granted monopolies. Monopolies are generally economically harmful and should be encouraged only where there are sufficient countervailing benefits (eg extra innovation) to compensate for this harm. Where such benefits don't exist (eg because the innovation would occur anyway - as is likely with software and business method patents) the monopoly should not be granted.
I read a long while back that RAMBUS modified its patent midstream. Isn't it conceivable that RAMBUS found out what JEDEC was propossing as an open standard and modified an existing patent application to include this?
This "justification" of region codes does not match the evidence. If protecting cinematic releases were the only reason for region coding then you'd expect only DVDs of recently relseased movies to be region-coded.
This is not the case -- the vast majority of DVDs have region encoding, including those that have long since left the cinemas (and even some from the first half of the twentieth century).
So it would seem that this "justification" is merely a fig leaf to cover anticompetitive behaviour, least it appear too blatant.