I'm surprised no one has pointed this out: this story is very out of date. It is true that on July 30, the plan was to suspend the program. But, between then and this story's appearance on/. three days later (!), $2 billion more has been injected into the program: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-clunkers-deal1-2009aug01,0,4715226.story.
I've always wondered: what exactly is the evidence that Obama is dependent on a teleprompter? Every president in recent memory has used one...
Also, the author of this Wikipedia entry seems to think Austrians speak Austrian as well. (Though I don't dispute that it is just a variant of German). If this even is a gaffe, it certainly doesn't hold up in a comparison with Bush's gems.
"Why would Hulu care what size screen the viewer is viewing program material?"
Because the content providers don't want you to cancel your cable subscription. Also, it's not "my theory." Plenty of others believe this is the case. Here is an example.
"The problem with Boxee is it's open sourceness."
And you say my theory is stupid because Boxee is only available to a small minority of platforms? What tiny fraction of these users do you think would actually modify the source to skip commercials?
"Again, think man! Think! Boxee only works on Linux and Mac"
Right. And we both know that, if the content providers had anything to say about it, you wouldn't be able to use those either, or they'd be useless because your DVI-out would be wrapped in DRM (sound familiar?).
I don't think it's any mystery why Hulu is "screwing around with" Boxee users: Hulu's content providers don't want Hulu to be viewable on a TV and, thus (in their sad confused minds) compete with their television programming. Yes, it's stupid, but I don't see how this is Hulu's fault. They're getting jerked around by the content providers just like the rest of us.
You're right that we can never know a theory to be "right", but it isn't for the reason you describe.
Falsifiability only requires that it be possible in principle (i.e. counterfactually) to produce a counterexample. If a theory were somehow known to be actually true, it would still be falsifiable in the relevant sense so long as it were possible to imagine a test such that if, contrary to fact, the theory was false we could make a test to figure it out.
The real reason we can never know a theory to be correct is because empirical data undetermine theory choice; that is, any set of empirical data is compatible with the truth of more than one theory.
I'm not sure the word "retarded" means what you think it means. (i.e., I'm pretty sure it's possible to have a "very large ignorance about what SIP trunking is" and, yet, not be retarded.)
Slashdot Mirror
Minor correction: the $2 billion has not been injected yet, but because it is in the works the program has been given a reprieve.
I'm surprised no one has pointed this out: this story is very out of date. It is true that on July 30, the plan was to suspend the program. But, between then and this story's appearance on /. three days later (!), $2 billion more has been injected into the program: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-clunkers-deal1-2009aug01,0,4715226.story.
...in Sweden.
Perhaps you need to be reminded, then, of the OP's actual request:
(my emphasis, of course)
Your one sentence was, I must say, quite well written, but lacking in the research department.
LOL. +1 Funny
I've always wondered: what exactly is the evidence that Obama is dependent on a teleprompter? Every president in recent memory has used one...
Also, the author of this Wikipedia entry seems to think Austrians speak Austrian as well. (Though I don't dispute that it is just a variant of German). If this even is a gaffe, it certainly doesn't hold up in a comparison with Bush's gems.
What are you talking about? That is an on-topic response to slashdot stories all the time! ;)
Excellent! Downloading it now... :)
Well maybe it will help you to remember that patent law is totally separate from copyright law, which it what the DMCA has to do with.
How's it working now?
"Why would Hulu care what size screen the viewer is viewing program material?"
Because the content providers don't want you to cancel your cable subscription. Also, it's not "my theory." Plenty of others believe this is the case. Here is an example.
"The problem with Boxee is it's open sourceness."
And you say my theory is stupid because Boxee is only available to a small minority of platforms? What tiny fraction of these users do you think would actually modify the source to skip commercials?
"Again, think man! Think! Boxee only works on Linux and Mac"
Windows version is coming. Coincidence?
That's true, I forgot. So just ignore the goodwill I was trying to extend towards Hulu and focus on my animosity towards the content providers. :)
I'd mod you +1 Informative if I could.
All of them, apparently!
Well...they played nice with Boxee for awhile too...sigh.
Right. And we both know that, if the content providers had anything to say about it, you wouldn't be able to use those either, or they'd be useless because your DVI-out would be wrapped in DRM (sound familiar?).
I don't think it's any mystery why Hulu is "screwing around with" Boxee users: Hulu's content providers don't want Hulu to be viewable on a TV and, thus (in their sad confused minds) compete with their television programming. Yes, it's stupid, but I don't see how this is Hulu's fault. They're getting jerked around by the content providers just like the rest of us.
Now Zoidberg is a homeowner!
Would you rather live in:
Norway or Uganda?
Venezuela or Bangladesh?
Saudi Arabia or Sierra Leone?
Russia or Afghanistan?
See, I can play this game too!
Next they will teach the controversy over the controversy and your post will be a founding document. I salute you.
You're right that we can never know a theory to be "right", but it isn't for the reason you describe.
Falsifiability only requires that it be possible in principle (i.e. counterfactually) to produce a counterexample. If a theory were somehow known to be actually true, it would still be falsifiable in the relevant sense so long as it were possible to imagine a test such that if, contrary to fact, the theory was false we could make a test to figure it out.
The real reason we can never know a theory to be correct is because empirical data undetermine theory choice; that is, any set of empirical data is compatible with the truth of more than one theory.
HP, is that you?
I'm pretty sure everyone does it. We definitely do it in Virginia and we're pretty backward. ;)
I'm not sure the word "retarded" means what you think it means. (i.e., I'm pretty sure it's possible to have a "very large ignorance about what SIP trunking is" and, yet, not be retarded.)
I doubt it. If there's one thing I know about Bill Clinton it's that he always has a cigar to give.
SO SAY WE ALL!