So, it's basically been accepted that, like with stereo equipment, you gotta choose your own cables.
This doesn't sound like too great an impediment for the die-hard gamer. After all, it didn't stop you (of course you have had excellent service from your providers - that helps).
Crap.... Now my son is going to want a HDTV in addition to the 360 for Christmas.
I guess he will just have to work harder raking gravel for that after-Christmas add-on.;)
The consideration here is the time to deploy, not the cost of deployment.
The time to deploy is less for Linux than Windows. I don't have to spend hours searching for the best price for the components that make up a Windows distribution equivalent to the Linux distrobution.
I just head to the internet and download a copy.
Whether or not you or others want to say the subsequent cost for taking the time to cobble together something under linux/bsd/whatever is orthogonal to the validity of the statement regarding time to get the service up and running.
As I said, my cost/time savings comes from not having to comparison shop for components. Not everything in a Linux distribution is available in the 'out of the box' Windows distribution. That means having to search for a good price on the components.
I don't know man... have you tried gaming in true high-definition?
No, can't say as I have. But my point was that the market for HD capable systems is small at the present time.
With $500.00 Plasma HD TVs on the market this fall, this is poised to jump through the ceiling.
Well then I hope Microsoft all the best. The add-on I was speaking of is cabling. From what the article says:
There is no out of box DVI or HDMI support, nor is there any Microsoft support for either of those video interface standards at this time, although Microsoft has indicated that they may offer HDMI support when it makes sense to. There is, however, an optical output, but the cable is not included.
If you don't have a HDTV but you have a VGA monitor that you'd like to use, Microsoft does offer a VGA cable that will allow you to connect your Xbox 360 to a VGA monitor. If you don't have a HDTV or a monitor but still want a higher quality output, Microsoft also offers a S-Video AV cable.
So are there cabling add-ons that are required to drive HD gaming? The way I read this passage, the only thing 360 supports "out of the box" is NTSC.
For small to medium sized businesses, cobbling together doesn't make sense.
Thanks for speaking for all small and medium sized businesses.
As for my small business (industrial hygiene laboratory), the 'cobbling together' process is more than compensated for in reduced cost to deploy. I'm sure more than a few small and medium sized businesses share that experience.
All I need is a vanilla PC and an internet connection.
The comment early in the article about Microsoft wanting to lock down their console just amazes me. The company has done a good job of placing themselves into an already competative market and securing themselves a place somewhere just ahead of Nintendo. But the idea that they could engineer themselves a completely tight console just shows the trouble they have with their customers. They are not exclusive in their anal-retentiveness, but the position that they have staked out is confusing. They are, after all, the company who gained the most from an open computer architecture.
Despite the fact that the 360 has a robust design and integrated hardware, it is still a PC. The GPU will probably have the greatest impact, but since the technology is shared between Microsoft and ATI, it will be exclusive. The Balkanization of game code will ratchet up one more level with this release.
I hope that the folks who have invested serious cash in game titles for the older console are ready for emulation. Or should I say, I hope the 360 can run them effectively. With a more powerful processor and amped up GPU, that shouldn't be a problem. Alas, things don't always sort themselves out so cleanly.
I personally don't believe that HD gaming is coming in a big way to the game market yet, but it is good to see Microsoft positioning itself to take advantage of the market when it comes. I guess we will have to see how the DVD wars sort themselves out, but having an HD-capable system now means at least on less add-on to convince consumers to buy later.
It would have been nice if Microsoft had provided some path for modification. I know they are not alone in controlling their equipment, but that added 'configurability' may have tipped the scales in Microsoft's favor. I know their are die hard fans of Sony and Nintendo who will never want (or, at least, admit to wanting) to move over to 360, but that nod to the modding community could have been a galvanizing moment for users.
Despite my gripe, it is a nice looking machine. I'd love to load an alternative OS on it.
They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution.
How are they getting the hydrogen again?
"But the HFI system uses electricity from an engine's alternator to power the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen as needed from small amounts of distilled water."
Are we talking about perpetual motion? How much water do they have to take with them to produce the hydrogen (8 pounds per gallon)? How do they start the vehicle moving down the road? I assume that their hydrogen source is probably mostly produced from electricity from coal burning plants.
No doubt that the particulate levels are lower using hydrogen over diesel, but considering where the hydrogen is produced, this fuel source may not be exactly the "less" polluting alternative as one may think.
There are several problems that geothermal energy will have to overcome before it can be used for any large-scale power production. First of all, geothermal solutions are terribly corrosive and the pipes are subject to scaling. The maintenance costs associated with keeping the plumbing working are high.
These are just a few of the problems associated with geothermal energy: the variable nature of the reservoirs and fluids; the depth, location, orientation, number and type of wells; the type and size of power plant; the method of disposal of the spent geothermal fluid and the need to conform with local environmental regulations.
I understand your point better, I still disagree with your contention that ID can be studied scientifically (due to the difficulty in defining irreducible complexity or intelligent design elements), but I respect your position better due to your civility. I don't expect we can resolve this disagreement over/., but perhaps someday we can discuss it over a beverage of your choice.
RE: Microsoft Research: I've used the Detours research project in many applications - most users (even tech savvy IT support) think I've accomplished something magical using it - it's extremely powerful software.
No doubt. Bell Labs created the transistor. Perhaps you've heard of it.:)
I am firmly in the "outside world", and these are real products (even if they are internal to my employer, a Fortune 500 corp) - just because you are unaware of the innovation that is happening there
I think you are assuming too much. The company I work for is in the innovation business too. We produce scientific solutions for Fortune 500 companies and Microsoft is heavily embedded in our organization. We see plenty of Microsoft's best stuff because we manage USDOE laboratories. My point was, and is, that Microsoft will fund activities in Microsoft Research just like AT&T funded Bell Labs. There was a strong 'inventive' capability in the people they hired (they employed quite a few were Nobel-level fellows), they produced cutting edge technology, and some of what they produced was deployed in the field.
The problem is that much of what they produced/invented never saw the light of day as products. The reason that much of what they produced never became consumer or commercial products is because they didn't know what to do with it. It was perhaps a basic science discovery whose real application did not fit into their business profile. Not necessarily their fault, just an economic reality.
(and just because it is funded by Microsoft) doesn't mean you should automatically discount this research.
My comment shouldn't be interpreted as discounting the research. I have no idea where you got that from my post.
I fully endorse the grandparent post: there is cutting edge work going on there.
>> Just like your post about the Columbia prayer study. I noticed you didn't post anything about that turd.
Were you born stupid?
Now how would that support Intelligent Design?
Are you now admitting that random mutation would be responsible for my stupidity?
I stated in my original post that the credentials of the people behind it were questionable.
You post a nearly five year old study that was refuted by the scientific community over three years ago and now you are having heartburn over the credentials of the people behind it?
Nothing gets past you, does it Einstein?
I'm aware of the issues with it, so your "amazing revelation" just revealed that you can't read. You utterly, utterly, can't read.
A perfect match for your inability to conduct relevant and current research.
Care to pull up a reference to research conducted more than a century ago? That would be about your speed.
I didn't even say if such studies would prove the existence of prayer or not, simply that the model is a correct one
A correct one?
Studying supernatural causes for natural phenomenon is correct?
Right... sure.
(though if they cheated that's a different issue), and are falsifiable and hence scientific.
How do you falisify supernatural events?
>>It is a central element in ID. You have to explain that element or the 'theory' is just more bullshit. >>At least you recognize a strawman. Now rise to the challenge and post a experiment.
So you admit you were using a strawman?
Admit to a strawman? You are high.
I asked you to provide an experimental design for looking for irreducible complexity. You have failed to supply one. Instead you pull out a completely debunked and fraudulent study and pat yourself on the back (while simultaneously inferring that I haven't any idea what ID is about).
I asked you to provide a definition of what would constitute an intelligent design element. You wave the challenge off with some horseshit comment about measuring bias in mutation.
Wonderful. I honestly don't know why I bother replying to idiots like you.
Perhaps if you actually responded, you wouldn't find it necessary to run away from my challenge.
I've written a long post on ID in my./ journal. Read it.
I did. You are still full of shit. Your journal article amounts to nothing more than a wasted effort describing what ID isn't rather than what it is *scientifically*. And your discussion about statistics has no basis in reality since you haven't identified a population to measure.
No smoke, no fire. ID is not science - it is creationism veiled in a false scientific argument.
You think ID is can be supported in a scientific argument? Fine, then what population will you measure? If you are using mutations as the basis for your theory, then what constitutes bias? Why rely on student t-test. Why not more powerful methods (and there are several) that look for spatial variance?
In case you hadn't gotten the message yet, I use the statistical methods you have been attempting to prop up the ID turd on a daily basis. The fact is, you don't know as much about statistics as you think you do. Why not use Shewart CUSUM? It tests for statistical independence of data points within a population.
And how do you bin your data? What criteria are you using to sort your mutations to measure bias? Blathering on about 95% CI makes you sound really smart, but until you identify what you are measuring you are just pumping hot air.
But hey, why waste your time discussing this with me. After all, you can't find the time to refute my challenge with anything more substantial than a personal attack.
And I understand pissy dogmatic arguments. It's amusing that 4 days after the article gets posted people come on and rate my posts troll five times. Yes, that's not friends of posters on here or anything.
More hyperbole, no experimental design.
I never stated any support for irreducible complexity.
It is a central element in ID. You have to explain that element or the 'theory' is just more bullshit.
Just like your post about the Columbia prayer study. I noticed you didn't post anything about that turd.
It's called a strawman argument when you state that someone believes something they don't, and then attack them for it.
You mean like your rant about my challenge?
At least you recognize a strawman. Now rise to the challenge and post a experiment.
>>define what constitutes elements of intelligent design
Quantify normal mutation processes and rates. Look for bias in the randomness of mutations.
So, if you work for Microsoft Research, there's no way you can be doing cutting edge research?
No, but if you work for Microsoft Research it is likely that the results of your research may never see the light of day as products. Unless there is a way for Microsoft to make hoards of cash from your idea, it will be stillborn.
Like it or not, it is top of the line work. They're at the cutting edge, and they're well financed.
Okay, but how many of their innovations (Christ Microsoft loves that word!) actually make it to the outside world?
I think your comparison to Bell Labs is good, however, in that much of what Bell Labs created required others to make into real products. AT&T/Ma Bell sat on every innovation until it nearly suffocated due to lack of capital investment.
Which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject
I understand Voodoo Science quite well. Voodoo Science has at least on attribute that you have exhibited already: failure to respond properly to your critics. I specifically asked for an experiment that would test for irreducible complexity or define what constitutes elements of intelligent design.
I have yet to see an experimental design in your post that will either test for irreducible complexity much less a definition of what constitutes intelligent design elements.
Wiggle and wave all you like about stats and you will have still failed the challenge. Produce an experiment that tests for irreducible complexity and/or a definition what constitutes intelligent design elements, or admit that it would be impossible to produce one.
It has been nearly 10 years and no one has done it yet. Criticing me for your lack of action in the highest spirit of alien abduction, Yeti and Bigfoot sightings, and the Amityville Horror fiasco.
I deliberately repeated my challenge several times just so that there is no mistake in what I am asking for.
Here are several examples of studies conducted by reputable institutions that found NO effect other than placebo regarding prayer. In fact, the double-blind study shows NO correlation. All of these articles are from "What's New", by Bob Park. The Duke study was published in Lancet. Columbia's lead in the study you cited is running as fast as he can from being associated with that turd.
So much of the ID-inspired example study.
You have any more ways to test ID? No?
ID is NOT science.
PRAYER: FOLLOW-UP STUDY FINDS NO BENEFIT FOR HEART PATIENTS. Prayers for the sick are probably the most widely practiced healing tradition in the world. An earlier study with the same lead author, Mitchell Krucoff, MD, at Duke University Medical Center, continues to be widely cited as scientific evidence for the power of prayer. In a much larger follow-up study, however, 748 patients who had common cardiac procedures were not helped by intercessory prayers of groups throughout the world, drawn from Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist denominations. You will not be surprised that the authors conclude that so-called "noetic" therapies, defined as therapies that don't involve the use of tangible drugs or devices, deserve further scientific scrutiny. Science assumes that all events result from natural causes (WN 3 Dec 04).
PRAYER STUDY: COLUMBIA PROFESSOR REMOVES HIS NAME FROM PAPER. We have been tracking the sordid story of the Columbia prayer study for three years (WN 05 Oct 01). It claimed that women for whom total strangers prayed were twice as likely to become pregnant from in-vitro fertilization as others; it was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. At the time we were unaware of the background of the study, but knew it had to be wrong; the first assumption of science is that events result from natural causes. The lead author, Rugerio Lobo, who at the time was Chair of Obstetrics, now says he had no role in the study. The author who set up the study is doing five years for fraud in a separate case, and his partner hanged himself in jail. Another author left Columbia and isn't talking. The Journal has never acknowledged any responsibility, and after withdrawing the paper for "scrutiny," has put it back on the web. Nor has the Journal published letters critical of the study. Columbia has never acknowledged any responsibility. All of this has come out due to the persistence of Bruce Flamm, MD. The science community should flatly refuse all proposals or papers that invoke any supernatural explanation for physical phenomena.
PRAYER: AND WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT DON'T WORK. The shuttle is still on the ground, the Kansas City Royals are 28 games behind, cold fusion is a memory, missile defense isn't even being tested, and intercessory prayer has no effect according to researchers at Duke reporting in Lancet. Didn't we already know that (WN 3 Dec 04)? Prayer is just one of the things the Samueli Institute supports that don't work. The Institute is headed by Wayne Jonas, a genuine authority on the subject of things that don't work. Former head of the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine, Jonas authored Healing with Homeopathy (WN 2 Aug 96)
Slashdot Mirror
So, it's basically been accepted that, like with stereo equipment, you gotta choose your own cables.
;)
This doesn't sound like too great an impediment for the die-hard gamer. After all, it didn't stop you (of course you have had excellent service from your providers - that helps).
Crap.... Now my son is going to want a HDTV in addition to the 360 for Christmas.
I guess he will just have to work harder raking gravel for that after-Christmas add-on.
I would be more fun to fry it instead.
The consideration here is the time to deploy, not the cost of deployment.
The time to deploy is less for Linux than Windows. I don't have to spend hours searching for the best price for the components that make up a Windows distribution equivalent to the Linux distrobution.
I just head to the internet and download a copy.
Whether or not you or others want to say the subsequent cost for taking the time to cobble together something under linux/bsd/whatever is orthogonal to the validity of the statement regarding time to get the service up and running.
As I said, my cost/time savings comes from not having to comparison shop for components. Not everything in a Linux distribution is available in the 'out of the box' Windows distribution. That means having to search for a good price on the components.
I don't know man... have you tried gaming in true high-definition?
No, can't say as I have. But my point was that the market for HD capable systems is small at the present time.
With $500.00 Plasma HD TVs on the market this fall, this is poised to jump through the ceiling.
Well then I hope Microsoft all the best. The add-on I was speaking of is cabling. From what the article says:
There is no out of box DVI or HDMI support, nor is there any Microsoft support for either of those video interface standards at this time, although Microsoft has indicated that they may offer HDMI support when it makes sense to. There is, however, an optical output, but the cable is not included.
If you don't have a HDTV but you have a VGA monitor that you'd like to use, Microsoft does offer a VGA cable that will allow you to connect your Xbox 360 to a VGA monitor. If you don't have a HDTV or a monitor but still want a higher quality output, Microsoft also offers a S-Video AV cable.
So are there cabling add-ons that are required to drive HD gaming? The way I read this passage, the only thing 360 supports "out of the box" is NTSC.
For small to medium sized businesses, cobbling together doesn't make sense.
Thanks for speaking for all small and medium sized businesses.
As for my small business (industrial hygiene laboratory), the 'cobbling together' process is more than compensated for in reduced cost to deploy. I'm sure more than a few small and medium sized businesses share that experience.
All I need is a vanilla PC and an internet connection.
Not an easy disassembly.
The comment early in the article about Microsoft wanting to lock down their console just amazes me. The company has done a good job of placing themselves into an already competative market and securing themselves a place somewhere just ahead of Nintendo. But the idea that they could engineer themselves a completely tight console just shows the trouble they have with their customers. They are not exclusive in their anal-retentiveness, but the position that they have staked out is confusing. They are, after all, the company who gained the most from an open computer architecture.
Despite the fact that the 360 has a robust design and integrated hardware, it is still a PC. The GPU will probably have the greatest impact, but since the technology is shared between Microsoft and ATI, it will be exclusive. The Balkanization of game code will ratchet up one more level with this release.
I hope that the folks who have invested serious cash in game titles for the older console are ready for emulation. Or should I say, I hope the 360 can run them effectively. With a more powerful processor and amped up GPU, that shouldn't be a problem. Alas, things don't always sort themselves out so cleanly.
I personally don't believe that HD gaming is coming in a big way to the game market yet, but it is good to see Microsoft positioning itself to take advantage of the market when it comes. I guess we will have to see how the DVD wars sort themselves out, but having an HD-capable system now means at least on less add-on to convince consumers to buy later.
It would have been nice if Microsoft had provided some path for modification. I know they are not alone in controlling their equipment, but that added 'configurability' may have tipped the scales in Microsoft's favor. I know their are die hard fans of Sony and Nintendo who will never want (or, at least, admit to wanting) to move over to 360, but that nod to the modding community could have been a galvanizing moment for users.
Despite my gripe, it is a nice looking machine. I'd love to load an alternative OS on it.
Strangely, those answers are in TFA. Thx for proving yourself a loon.
Well thank you for your positive comments.
You don't know how much that means to me.
I am so f sick and tired of gd SUV wanks
I don't own an SUV, but thanks for asking.
I assume it starts like any diesel vehicle. You heat up the glow-plugs, and turn the engine over. Compression ignites the diesel fuel.
I thought the combustion had to be modified for hydrogen. Unlike gasoline engines, diesel engines use extemely high compression.
It's still a diesel-fueled vehicle. Adding hydrogen to the mix is supposed to improve milage somehow.
Right. It is the details I'm having problems with.
They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution.
How are they getting the hydrogen again?
"But the HFI system uses electricity from an engine's alternator to power the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen as needed from small amounts of distilled water."
Are we talking about perpetual motion? How much water do they have to take with them to produce the hydrogen (8 pounds per gallon)? How do they start the vehicle moving down the road? I assume that their hydrogen source is probably mostly produced from electricity from coal burning plants.
No doubt that the particulate levels are lower using hydrogen over diesel, but considering where the hydrogen is produced, this fuel source may not be exactly the "less" polluting alternative as one may think.
There are several problems that geothermal energy will have to overcome before it can be used for any large-scale power production. First of all, geothermal solutions are terribly corrosive and the pipes are subject to scaling. The maintenance costs associated with keeping the plumbing working are high.
These are just a few of the problems associated with geothermal energy: the variable nature of the reservoirs and fluids; the depth, location, orientation, number and type of wells; the type and size of power plant; the method of disposal of the spent geothermal fluid and the need to conform with local environmental regulations.
Of course, no story even marginally associated with silly walks could avoid this page.
I can't believe how many webpages are dedicated to this episode.
I understand your point better, I still disagree with your contention that ID can be studied scientifically (due to the difficulty in defining irreducible complexity or intelligent design elements), but I respect your position better due to your civility. I don't expect we can resolve this disagreement over /., but perhaps someday we can discuss it over a beverage of your choice.
Thanks for your recent reply.
RE: Microsoft Research: I've used the Detours research project in many applications - most users (even tech savvy IT support) think I've accomplished something magical using it - it's extremely powerful software.
:)
No doubt. Bell Labs created the transistor. Perhaps you've heard of it.
I am firmly in the "outside world", and these are real products (even if they are internal to my employer, a Fortune 500 corp) - just because you are unaware of the innovation that is happening there
I think you are assuming too much. The company I work for is in the innovation business too. We produce scientific solutions for Fortune 500 companies and Microsoft is heavily embedded in our organization. We see plenty of Microsoft's best stuff because we manage USDOE laboratories. My point was, and is, that Microsoft will fund activities in Microsoft Research just like AT&T funded Bell Labs. There was a strong 'inventive' capability in the people they hired (they employed quite a few were Nobel-level fellows), they produced cutting edge technology, and some of what they produced was deployed in the field.
The problem is that much of what they produced/invented never saw the light of day as products. The reason that much of what they produced never became consumer or commercial products is because they didn't know what to do with it. It was perhaps a basic science discovery whose real application did not fit into their business profile. Not necessarily their fault, just an economic reality.
(and just because it is funded by Microsoft) doesn't mean you should automatically discount this research.
My comment shouldn't be interpreted as discounting the research. I have no idea where you got that from my post.
I fully endorse the grandparent post: there is cutting edge work going on there.
Who in this thread said they didn't?
>> Just like your post about the Columbia prayer study. I noticed you didn't post anything about that turd.
./ journal. Read it.
Were you born stupid?
Now how would that support Intelligent Design?
Are you now admitting that random mutation would be responsible for my stupidity?
I stated in my original post that the credentials of the people behind it were questionable.
You post a nearly five year old study that was refuted by the scientific community over three years ago and now you are having heartburn over the credentials of the people behind it?
Nothing gets past you, does it Einstein?
I'm aware of the issues with it, so your "amazing revelation" just revealed that you can't read. You utterly, utterly, can't read.
A perfect match for your inability to conduct relevant and current research.
Care to pull up a reference to research conducted more than a century ago? That would be about your speed.
I didn't even say if such studies would prove the existence of prayer or not, simply that the model is a correct one
A correct one?
Studying supernatural causes for natural phenomenon is correct?
Right... sure.
(though if they cheated that's a different issue), and are falsifiable and hence scientific.
How do you falisify supernatural events?
>>It is a central element in ID. You have to explain that element or the 'theory' is just more bullshit.
>>At least you recognize a strawman. Now rise to the challenge and post a experiment.
So you admit you were using a strawman?
Admit to a strawman? You are high.
I asked you to provide an experimental design for looking for irreducible complexity. You have failed to supply one. Instead you pull out a completely debunked and fraudulent study and pat yourself on the back (while simultaneously inferring that I haven't any idea what ID is about).
I asked you to provide a definition of what would constitute an intelligent design element. You wave the challenge off with some horseshit comment about measuring bias in mutation.
Wonderful. I honestly don't know why I bother replying to idiots like you.
Perhaps if you actually responded, you wouldn't find it necessary to run away from my challenge.
I've written a long post on ID in my
I did. You are still full of shit. Your journal article amounts to nothing more than a wasted effort describing what ID isn't rather than what it is *scientifically*. And your discussion about statistics has no basis in reality since you haven't identified a population to measure.
No smoke, no fire. ID is not science - it is creationism veiled in a false scientific argument.
You think ID is can be supported in a scientific argument? Fine, then what population will you measure? If you are using mutations as the basis for your theory, then what constitutes bias? Why rely on student t-test. Why not more powerful methods (and there are several) that look for spatial variance?
In case you hadn't gotten the message yet, I use the statistical methods you have been attempting to prop up the ID turd on a daily basis. The fact is, you don't know as much about statistics as you think you do. Why not use Shewart CUSUM? It tests for statistical independence of data points within a population.
And how do you bin your data? What criteria are you using to sort your mutations to measure bias? Blathering on about 95% CI makes you sound really smart, but until you identify what you are measuring you are just pumping hot air.
But hey, why waste your time discussing this with me. After all, you can't find the time to refute my challenge with anything more substantial than a personal attack.
And I understand pissy dogmatic arguments. It's amusing that 4 days after the article gets posted people come on and rate my posts troll five times. Yes, that's not friends of posters on here or anything.
More hyperbole, no experimental design.
I never stated any support for irreducible complexity.
It is a central element in ID. You have to explain that element or the 'theory' is just more bullshit.
Just like your post about the Columbia prayer study. I noticed you didn't post anything about that turd.
It's called a strawman argument when you state that someone believes something they don't, and then attack them for it.
You mean like your rant about my challenge?
At least you recognize a strawman. Now rise to the challenge and post a experiment.
>>define what constitutes elements of intelligent design
Quantify normal mutation processes and rates. Look for bias in the randomness of mutations.
That's it?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Any more questions?
Yes: Are you on drugs?
I bet Microsoft patents most of its research just like IBM.
They will probably patent all of the stuff they can.
Hence, most of the research will see the light of day.
You missed my qualifier: "as products". In that context I stand by my statement.
Of course, if you believe that patenting is a bad idea and equivalent to withholding research, you are right.
I don't consider patenting a bad idea, per se, but I do believe defensive and method patents are stupid and should be removed from US patent code.
And no, I do not consider withholding research to equivalent to patenting an idea. I don't know where you got that idea.
Funny how memos like "Windows XP still hands Linux its ass in the desktop market -- any questions?" never leak out to the public.
How much of that advantage is performance based and how much is due to monopoly control?
So, if you work for Microsoft Research, there's no way you can be doing cutting edge research?
No, but if you work for Microsoft Research it is likely that the results of your research may never see the light of day as products. Unless there is a way for Microsoft to make hoards of cash from your idea, it will be stillborn.
Like it or not, it is top of the line work. They're at the cutting edge, and they're well financed.
Okay, but how many of their innovations (Christ Microsoft loves that word!) actually make it to the outside world?
I think your comparison to Bell Labs is good, however, in that much of what Bell Labs created required others to make into real products. AT&T/Ma Bell sat on every innovation until it nearly suffocated due to lack of capital investment.
Which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject
I understand Voodoo Science quite well. Voodoo Science has at least on attribute that you have exhibited already: failure to respond properly to your critics. I specifically asked for an experiment that would test for irreducible complexity or define what constitutes elements of intelligent design.
I have yet to see an experimental design in your post that will either test for irreducible complexity much less a definition of what constitutes intelligent design elements.
Wiggle and wave all you like about stats and you will have still failed the challenge. Produce an experiment that tests for irreducible complexity and/or a definition what constitutes intelligent design elements, or admit that it would be impossible to produce one.
It has been nearly 10 years and no one has done it yet. Criticing me for your lack of action in the highest spirit of alien abduction, Yeti and Bigfoot sightings, and the Amityville Horror fiasco.
I deliberately repeated my challenge several times just so that there is no mistake in what I am asking for.
Bullshit.
Here are several examples of studies conducted by reputable institutions that found NO effect other than placebo regarding prayer. In fact, the double-blind study shows NO correlation. All of these articles are from "What's New", by Bob Park. The Duke study was published in Lancet. Columbia's lead in the study you cited is running as fast as he can from being associated with that turd.
So much of the ID-inspired example study.
You have any more ways to test ID? No?
ID is NOT science.
PRAYER: FOLLOW-UP STUDY FINDS NO BENEFIT FOR HEART PATIENTS.
Prayers for the sick are probably the most widely practiced healing tradition in the world. An earlier study with the same lead author, Mitchell Krucoff, MD, at Duke University Medical Center, continues to be widely cited as scientific evidence for the power of prayer. In a much larger follow-up study, however, 748 patients who had common cardiac procedures were not helped by intercessory prayers of groups throughout the world, drawn from Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist denominations. You will not be surprised that the authors conclude that so-called "noetic" therapies, defined as therapies that don't involve the use of tangible drugs or devices, deserve further scientific scrutiny. Science assumes that all events result from natural causes (WN 3 Dec 04).
PRAYER STUDY: COLUMBIA PROFESSOR REMOVES HIS NAME FROM PAPER.
We have been tracking the sordid story of the Columbia prayer study for three years (WN 05 Oct 01). It claimed that women for whom total strangers prayed were twice as likely to become pregnant from in-vitro fertilization as others; it was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. At the time we were unaware of the background of the study, but knew it had to be wrong; the first assumption of science is that events result from natural causes. The lead author, Rugerio Lobo, who at the time was Chair of Obstetrics, now says he had no role in the study. The author who set up the study is doing five years for fraud in a separate case, and his partner hanged himself in jail. Another author left Columbia and isn't talking. The Journal has never acknowledged any responsibility, and after withdrawing the paper for "scrutiny," has put it back on the web. Nor has the Journal published letters critical of the study. Columbia has never acknowledged any responsibility. All of this has come out due to the persistence of Bruce Flamm, MD. The science community should flatly refuse all proposals or papers that invoke any supernatural explanation for physical phenomena.
PRAYER: AND WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT DON'T WORK.
The shuttle is still on the ground, the Kansas City Royals are 28 games behind, cold fusion is a memory, missile defense isn't even being tested, and intercessory prayer has no effect according to researchers at Duke reporting in Lancet. Didn't we already know that (WN 3 Dec 04)? Prayer is just one of the things the Samueli Institute supports that don't work. The Institute is headed by Wayne Jonas, a genuine authority on the subject of things that don't work. Former head of the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine, Jonas authored Healing with Homeopathy (WN 2 Aug 96)
I'm sure it either wore out due to overuse or was discontinued due to lack of use.
You can decide which of these two is true.
You meant Zippy, didn't you?