You're assuming quite a lot. You assume that because a large viewership means that somehow people changed by watching it. This assumes that people didn't do what people do which is to find within the information presented, something that confirms what they already know. It also assumes that not everyone who watched it knew the information presented. But aside from these simple logical errors you make, I'm not quite sure what point you are making. I am guessing (but not assuming) that you mean to say that somehow getting non-scientists to know what is already known by scientists somehow advances science. I am not quite sure how that works.

I remember all of it. Again the point was to do what the article said no one would do.

However, in defense of the question's validity, the question is not whether or not he was a well known figure involved in computing but rather was Steve Jobs just a part of a larger, inevitable computing movement? Did he make something happen that wouldn't have otherwise? Would no one else have developed the Xerox PARC idea of the GUI?

To your point, would computing today be more or less just as pervasive without Jobs only with, say, more Amigas? I'm not saying definitively it would or wouldn't, but seriously, nobody has ever asked that question? And there are no takers that it would?

The point was to question what someone said no one had questioned. If you can't see that your reasoning is already flawed and you really shouldn't be one to throw down another challenge.

BTW, I know quite a bit about the path computing and graphical user interfaces have taken and I still think it is a valid question. Would no one else have continued the work from Xerox PARC? Jobs was not in charge of Apple from 1985 until 1997. Computing and adoption of graphical user interfaces as the norm soared in that time. And I don't think it was due to what he was doing at NeXT.

"Nobody has questioned Jobs' seismic impact on computing and our communication culture"

Challenge accepted.

Did he really change how many people use computers or how much influence those computers have in their lives or did he just change which brand of computer they purchased?

An excellent point, but not relevant here. However, in the United States, searches can be with a warrant issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Allegations can be supported by Oath, e.g. several friends and family members say they saw child porn on your laptop. Allegations can be supported by affirmation, e.g. they set up a sting operation whereby they do, in fact, know that at one time a computer in your house had downloaded child porn. But being very certain that it was downloaded onto a machine in the house just isn't the same as knowing on what machine and by whom. It also isn't the same thing as knowing it is still there. Finally, the burden of proof you mention isn't required until any subsequent trial.

I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, but post-Christmas and the Fall update for the XBox, I would wonder how many more searches were driven by additional traffic from the Bing search from XBox, especially the voice search via Kinect. I think that would amount to a very sizable increase alone, because I still don't know, like most posters, anyone who goes to bing.com via browser deliberately for a search.

Thank you. I have actually read the entire bill and I really fail to see what all the hatred is about. That said, I tend to agree partially with Rackspace in that I don't believe the bill will actually be very effective to the end of Stopping Online Piracy but it could provide some modicum of relief for copyright holders, e.g. shutting down access to allofmp3 clones, etc. I would invite everyone to actually read the entire bill for themselves.

But this is Slashdot. So, barring that I would invite everyone to at least assume that laws are not generally drafted by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. They are likewise not generally passed by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. And they are not generally to be enforced by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. That kind of shrill dialog only serves to dumb down any discussion.

I am not digging. Your original statement remains incorrect. You are correct, IDE does not equal interface design. But, as you also point out, some IDEs are used for interface design. It is this very real case that I used as a counter example to your original post, where you suggested that in no case was an IDE better than vim. That was then and remains an inflammatory, ill-informed, misguided, and incorrect statement. There are, as I mentioned, other counter examples. I will not provide them, however. A single counter example will suffice to disprove your suggestion. If you would like others, I suggest you gather some software development experience.

Here's the conclusion I jumped to: you felt there are no benefits to ever using a graphical IDE because no graphical IDE works better than vim. This was based on what you said:

The conclusion I drew was correct. Also correct was where I mentioned that if you believe that, you are wrong. You have gone on now to point out why for your particular situation a console only approach is best. Fantastic. Some specific cases are best suited that way. In other cases however, there are a number of uses for graphical IDEs, even if you lack the experience to have ever been able to see the benefit of one. Also, one day, with some experience, you may find that suggesting that different solutions have no benefit for different requirements is foolish.

Stop this. Forever. If you need to design GUIs in your software development, a console only approach is undoubtedly inferior. Not using an unquestionably inferior development environment would be a benefit. There are loads of other examples. For some development, absolutely, a console meets the needs perfectly. But different requirements often require different solutions. If you don't know that as a developer, I do not want to use your software.

Right, I agree, there may be some ease of use by having it built-in and officially supported, but I think the failure rate of Siri to this point has perhaps rendered that moot. In this case: doesn't work? Join the club, it's failing for many.