No, it's $100 because there are a number of other devices that do exactly the same thing that cost about $100 but don't suck you in to the Apple content system, which they can then use to manipulate more $'s from your pocket.

You must be a viewer. Advertisers consider that a feature, not a bug.

It works for you because you happen to have a particular set of equipment that doesn't have bugs in their remote database.

I have two units that don't work unless I use variant names for them.

And (unless they've fixed this, which they didn't for the 3 years I was bitching about it) heaven help you if you replace one of your pieces of AV equipment with something else. You might as well dissolve your remote in acid and start with a fresh one.

That isn't a TV problem. That's a the-planet-is-spherical problem. The solution to that is simple, but requires an addition of massively expensive infrastructure.

TV can be fixed using exactly the equipment that is currently installed and for sale for cheap, by changing none of it.

TV can be fixed by lining TV executives up against the wall and letting the ninjas go to town on them.

Remove those, and they'll be replaced by infomercials. You won't get Buffy the Vampire Slayer 2012 or anything like that.

Cable's not worth it any more.

Seriously. I have something north of 500 tunable channels, maybe 1000, and there are times there isn't one watchable thing on any of them because hundreds are showing infomercials and Everybody Loves Raymond reruns.

And it makes perfect sense to the businesses that feed the cable company content.

That's the world that your local business school wants us to live in.

Um, this stuff peaked in, like, 1998. It's actually kind of dying out, now. Like bookstores.

The idea of putting a hot chick on the cover instead of some smirking nerd is new. At least the marketing department hired someone with a clue.

>Sequencing may be getting cheaper, but it's not so cheap that scientists facing funding cuts can afford to throw away data simply to recreate it.

They should, in their original budget, have determined that they were able to do something with it before they budgeted money to create it.

If they didn't, then they failed in their original budgeting, and the problem isn't so much that we have too much data and not enough brainpower, but that we simply aren't applying any brainpower to the part of the lifecycle of the scientific process.

They wasted their (probably my) money, and now they're asking for more? Nuh-uh. Someone else's turn.

>That's like saying don't buy any more books until you've read the ones you've already got.

Yes, it is. And? If you have too many books to fit into your house, you're probably not going to be able to read them all anyway. When someone develops the Kindle, get that.

>Or don't download any more pr0n until

Interestingly, I stopped downloading that a while ago. There's no need. I know there will be plenty more out on the web.

Wait. You think you're going to be shot if you vote in public, so you don't mind a system where you can't protect your vote from simply being ignored?

Get out of my America.

If they're discussing it with us, it's in their way.

Take as much data as you need to test your analysis methods, then ramp up data collection when your analysis works.

And random drug testing.

And random IQ testing, come to think of it.

Almost anyone making over $28/hour has been exempt for as long as I can remember.

If you're working a job that typically requires more than 40 hours a week, and you accepted a salary, then you got screwed by a superior negotiator.

Says who? You?

Because I have 9 Supreme Court justices, who are just the latest in a long line of such folks, who say you're full of it.

I'm guessing politically correct but economically nonsensical.