Between the disruption of well established television model, the impressive evolution of the capabilities of the internet, and the recent decision on Net Neutrality I'm convinced you're trying to sound smart by being contrarian.

It would also depend on if it's the path of least resistance to reach that goal. With this sort of scheme...? No.

This is Voyager not TOS, you dumbshit Pakled.

You don't end up with more money than you started with when you get tax breaks.

Yeah! You can totally tell he ditched the courses in philanthropy and real-estate back in film school.

It's like how a real terrorist would not joke about a bomb at an airport. But someone who does is detained or arrested, and time is spent by TSA that could be better spent looking for real terrorists.

I studied and tutored experimental design and this use of inferential statistics. I even came up with a formula for 1/5 the calculator keystrokes when learning to calculate the p-value manually. Take the standard deviation and mean for each group, then calculate the standard deviation of these means (how different the groups are) divided by the mean of these standard deviations (how wide the groups of data are) and multiply by the square root of n (sample size for each group). But that's off the point. We had 5 papers in our class for psychology majors (I almost graduated in that instead of engineering) that discussed why controlled experiments (using the p-value) should not be published. In each case my knee-jerk reaction was that they didn't like math or didn't understand math and just wanted to 'suppose' answers. But each article attacked the math abuse, by proficient academics at universities who did this sort of research. I came around too. The math is established for random environments but the scientists control every bit of the environment, not to get better results but to detect thing so tiny that they really don't matter. The math lets them misuse the word 'significant' as though there is a strong connection between cause and effect. Yet every environmental restriction (same living arrangements, same diets, same genetic strain of rats, etc) invalidates the result. It's called intrinsic validity (finding it in the experiment) vs. extrinsic validity (applying in real life). You can also find things that are weaker (by the square root of n) by using larger groups. A study can be set up in a way so as to likely find 'something' tiny and get the research prestige, but another study can be set up with different controls that turn out an opposite result. And none apply to real life like reading the results of an entire population living normal lives. You have to study and think quite a while, as I did (even walking the streets around Berkeley to find books on the subject up to 40 years prior) to see that the words "99 percentage significance level" means not a strong effect but more likely one that is so tiny, maybe a part in a million, that you'd never see it in real life.

No, it isn't. They had to go further out of their way to dance around that issue in order to make a legal clone.

It changes this part:

... they clean-room reverse engineered it.

You can nitpick individual details all you like, but at the end of the day Compaq created the clone of the BIOS despite IBM, not with support from them.

Heh. No. Compaq reverse-engineered their BIOS. Here's some more reading material.

Or Google could release an OS that doesn't require vendors' permission to install... like Microsoft does. Hah.

From the same link:

Using off-the-shelf parts is not the same as being open.

This article only takes into account direct emissions. It neglects the CO2 emissions due to the energy used in the manufacture of said airplanes, which is proportional to their cost.

Actually... It is being rationalized on both sides of the debate, not one. Logic is being used, but only for one set of values, leading to a mistaken impression that one is right, as opposed to just having an opinion. Nobody is on any higher ground than "I have buddies here that agree with me". The reason for that is that this article was never about choosing which lives to save. The poster I replied to, in order to pose as a 'smarter than the rest of us' person, attempted to pervert it into that. But since he based it on a misunderstanding of why it came up in the first place, replying to my post about the actual value of the individual lives is fruitless. This scenario doesn't lend itself to this discussion.

None of what you said has any relevance to why the number of children and infants was brought up by the news outlet. If you want to have a hypothetical debate about the value of children, then let's talk about a scenario involving life boats.

It doesn't.