It could be worse: It could be running Android.

Honestly, is more competition in this space a problem? Is your objection to "Smart TV's" in general or the OS specifically?

It's not like you can't just use a Matchstick or Roku box if you want. At worst, smart TV features are harmless.

Seriously? There's absolutely nothing suspicious about the AC's claim. Countless hobbyists have done the same thing.

I know the younger crowd seems to think assembly seems a bit like incomprehensible magic, but it's really not.

That would be called "behavior".

Just make up any old nonsense. It's what he does most of the time.

In 1997, it would have been hell. I don't know if you remember dialup back then, but even a high-end V.34 33.6 would not have been sufficient.

The web, of course, wasn't ready for that kind of application either. You'd have been running IE3 or (if you were leading edge) Netscape Communicator 4. Even on your impressive 166mhz Pentium with 32mb of RAM, javascript performance was absurdly slow. This is to say nothing of the incredible differences between IE and Netscape at the beginning of the great browser wars. If anyone were to have attempted such a thing, it would have undoubtedly been a Java applet simply for speed and compatibility. Let's face it, Java applets were not known for their speed!

A table of images would have taken minutes to load -- no one would dare scroll or zoom. Further, something simple today like "JS overlays" simply wasn't possible. (I'm fairly certain layers and position weren't available until IE4 and a later version of NN4 sometime near the end of 1997). Even then, users would have needed a high-end computer, the latest software, and a lot of patience for something even approaching Google maps.

What did we have in 1997? MapQuest. You typed in your starting location and final destination and got a set of turn-by-turn directions with a few static maps. It was still slow, but far more than sufficient at the time. Something like Google maps would have been significantly slower and, consequently, much less useful.

Why? That presumption is unjustified. Why would I offer some other unjustified presumption? Why would we prefer one to another?

Isn't it much more sensible to say, simply, "we don't know" to questions to which we have no justifiable answer?

Sure, but that's not science either.

I think I see what you're going for with the "fixed by definition" but it's very silly. Consider this bit of nonsense: "By definition, digestion is what the heart does". You'd reject that, obviously, as it's completely unjustified.

You accept the phrase in question here not because it's been established through scientific means, but on a purely metaphysical basis. It's just as foolish as any other reason to accept an unjustified proposition, but far more dangerous as it unjustifiably lends scientific credibility, and distorts the public understanding of science.

Oh, you're thinking of Paul Tillich. A rather famous and influential theologian. His "ground of all being" marks a radical shift in ontology (think: god as a being vs god as the ground of all being). Google the name and I'm sure you'll find a better explanation.

Fun fact: Tillich was an atheist.

Let's stick to reality, please. Baseless assumptions masquerading as science aren't going to get us anywhere. Anyhow, let me explain the quote, which you clearly misunderstood:

The unstated assumption here is that, if you are a biological machine, consciousness is epiphenomenal. As an unavoidable consequence, free will would be illusory. Sentience, necessarily lacking causal efficacy, would be irrelevant to life. It could not contribute, in any way, to survival -- or anything else!

The problem, of course, is that isn't the result of some empirical investigation, That belief is based on metaphysics, not science. The only answer you'll get from science is "we don't know". "We don't know" is a very important phrase. Let's not do the world a disservice by offering groundless "conclusions" just to avoid it.

I understand. Ideology is difficult to overcome. Hopefully, with time, you'll come to see reason.

That given the social and political state of Bangladesh, the murder was likely to occur anyway as a result of the journalists political views. It's not uncommon for religion to be abused for political reasons, after all. Hence, my suspicions that the religion was used as justification, not as a motive.

Even though there is a clear political motive?

Well, there was that nasty bit during French Revolution.

It's Bangladesh. I suspect that the slated religious differences were just ad hoc justification for a murder that would have occurred otherwise.

Nerds older that you, I suppose.