It is unlikely that a free textbook (or any textbook, really) will count for tenure, in either the social or physical sciences, barring very high level technical textbooks.

So, yes, they would be wasting their time unless already well established. That rules out grad students and early career professors.

That is false: familiarity with facebook does not mean tech-savvy.

A surprising portion of even the very best and brightest 18-22 year olds would still hold a floppy disk completely level if you told them the bits might fall off.

It has always seemed to me that an iPhone only really made sense if you were already an almost completely Apple shop. If you already use OSX everywhere, have a few apple TVs or airport speakers lying around, an iPhone is tops for integration.

I've never understood why anyone would buy one that didn't already have at least one OSX machine.

DB-25 was a proprietary connector?

I remember the IIgs in color.

That is how scientific publishing is structured. Don't blame the authors, they're mostly incapable of fighting the system without sabotaging their careers.

So, I haven't been in an IBM content hosting server room in around 13 years, but I think you far underestimate how large they can be.

While that is true, the safe bet is still going to be that X implies Y.

If the first premise is true (X is highly correlated with Y), then to expect Y when one finds X is only natural (and takes less processing time).

Now, if we had some clear cases where X doesn't lead to Y, for example when Z is present, then we can solve the problem of unfairly expecting Y by also looking for Z. Hunting for Z will probably be more fruitful in the long run than trying to train people to ignore stereotypes that have evidentiary support.

Clearly no such ban is immanent. That said, prop 8 passed in California with only 52.24% of the vote.

Wasting mod points to post, but: US Americans are not that heterogenous. What specific groups (with dissenting views relevant to the matter at hand) are systematically excluded from the sample?

They offer up their sampling procedures and methodology here.

A larger sample size is not inherently better. 1000 isn't much different from 10,000 or 10 million. If the sampling method would be unrepresentative with 1000 cases, it wouldn't be any better with more.

I've played games that let the old content sit untouched.

Hardly anyone played it, so you had to essentially con top level players to milk run you through content to get geared - unlikely in cases where there wasn't already a real-world friendship. Once a game hits that point the influx new players that stick with the game long enough to raid drop to nearly zero, and the game ossifies, then dies. There is no way that it is a "better" solution.

and hardly a new phenomenon.

You need a Masters Degree in many fields to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere. This varies somewhat in technical fields, but as we see time and time again, once your age climbs over, say, 35, it can be tough as hell to get a technical job. Outside of tech fields, you need either a top flight BA/BS or a higher degree to set you apart, and there is no reason for this trend to reverse.

Allows anyone to submit a paper? Who will review them?

Uh, yeah. Did you actually see Terminator?

I don't see why Luddism is the necessary conclusion.

It could just as easily be: Sky-high unemployment, and to hell with the workers anyway. Human input isn't really necessary for a variety of tasks. When machines become cheap enough for a short-term profit, why hire humans to flip burgers, push mops, write tickets?

Jobless recovery and all that.