You are called a denier because your reasoning is identical to that of other types of denier.
And whining about ad hominem and then banging in about "Marxist echo chamber at school" is pure absence of self-awareness.
You seriously believe a company like Apple cannot ramp up production if there is demand?
Learn the concept of marginal returns. I am quite certain Apple could buy up more production capacity. I am equally certain it could not do so in an economically viable way. Not all demand is profitable. The other makers are equally constrained, which is why none of them can produce a viable tablet to compete on price with iPad.
Since when is "virus takes out small company's computers" a story that shows up on the news?
Are you serious? You don't think Gizmodo, Engadget, Ars, and all the rest wouldn't be all over this like a rash? And Giz has a track record of paying cold hard cash for stories...
No, they showed that it is less effective at primary prevention the previously supposed, (but still very effective at secondary prevention).
The trick is to develop the hypothesis properly. Also, there is a lot more to "proving" than a null hypothesis - that is just a useful logical device, especially when using statisitcal significance as a metric (as well as helping to check that the hypothesis is amenable to falsification).
And the statins I take are generic and long out of patent, so "big pharma" is way past caring about them.
Real science is hard and takes time. What is taught in a few paragraphs today took Newton a lifetime to perceive.
Only if you use the mathematical definition of proof, which science does not.
"Proof" in science, is more-or-less synonymous with "test". As in proving grounds, proof-spirit, the exception that proves (ie tests the limit of) the rule...
However, when you say the word "App Store", I think that conjures up images of just about any sort of app stores that we have nowadays - Palm's, Blackberry's, Windows Phone's Android's, etc
That is rather Apple's point: the others are living off the goodwill created by Apple's innovation ("passing off", in the parlance). ie, Apple's argument is that it has become generic because others lifted it. And I believe US trademark law operates on a "use it or lose it" principle that requires trademarks to be defended actively.
Also, I would bet a reasonable amount of cash that if you did a survey of non-geek smartphone users, most would think "iPhone" to the prompt "App store".
But Sophos has pushed out alarmist trolling press releases every quarter or so for years now all implying how OSX is about to be hit by a tidal wave of viruses, worms etc (other sites have credited Sophos as the source of this story - not Slashdot though, it seems.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? https://arcticwwf.org/species/... and huh? https://polarbearsinternationa... Fact check, Blenkinsop, fact check.
Logic does not work how you think it works.
Global warming predicts a less stable climate with more severe extremes, so yeah...you point?
You are called a denier because your reasoning is identical to that of other types of denier. And whining about ad hominem and then banging in about "Marxist echo chamber at school" is pure absence of self-awareness.
In *your part* of Canada. They are moving, because their habitat is being destroyed. By climate change.
Played like a cheap violin.
....I didn't know shadows and reflections had DNA.
When you say "rigorous.....
...appears to rest on the posit that Apple cares about IT managers, rather than wishes to eliminate them as a class, Kulak style.
...or they could just implement a proper convoy system
Learn the concept of marginal returns. I am quite certain Apple could buy up more production capacity. I am equally certain it could not do so in an economically viable way. Not all demand is profitable. The other makers are equally constrained, which is why none of them can produce a viable tablet to compete on price with iPad.
What about those of us who don't want our eyeballs sold?
Actually, catapulting something into The Sun is much harder than it looks. Just sayin'...
Are you serious? You don't think Gizmodo, Engadget, Ars, and all the rest wouldn't be all over this like a rash? And Giz has a track record of paying cold hard cash for stories...
I suspect your pants are on fire.
Yes. I'm sure dissing pose2own was foremost in Apple's thinking when planning its release schedule.
No, they showed that it is less effective at primary prevention the previously supposed, (but still very effective at secondary prevention).
The trick is to develop the hypothesis properly. Also, there is a lot more to "proving" than a null hypothesis - that is just a useful logical device, especially when using statisitcal significance as a metric (as well as helping to check that the hypothesis is amenable to falsification).
And the statins I take are generic and long out of patent, so "big pharma" is way past caring about them.
Real science is hard and takes time. What is taught in a few paragraphs today took Newton a lifetime to perceive.
Only if you use the mathematical definition of proof, which science does not.
"Proof" in science, is more-or-less synonymous with "test". As in proving grounds, proof-spirit, the exception that proves (ie tests the limit of) the rule...
Indeed - so it isn't generic is the way the geekerati assert.
That is rather Apple's point: the others are living off the goodwill created by Apple's innovation ("passing off", in the parlance). ie, Apple's argument is that it has become generic because others lifted it. And I believe US trademark law operates on a "use it or lose it" principle that requires trademarks to be defended actively.
Also, I would bet a reasonable amount of cash that if you did a survey of non-geek smartphone users, most would think "iPhone" to the prompt "App store".
Mod parent up!
Coders, coding. Or "God" if you prefer. Computer viruses: the creationists' wet dream.
Consensus according to whom? Your evidence is?
Except it doesn't. Biological viruses are not driven by self-aware controllers with a financial interest, nor do they evolve in the biological sense.
But apart from that, a sound analogy.
But Sophos has pushed out alarmist trolling press releases every quarter or so for years now all implying how OSX is about to be hit by a tidal wave of viruses, worms etc (other sites have credited Sophos as the source of this story - not Slashdot though, it seems.