The notes in the minor pentatonic scale go so well with blues and most rock music that any idiot (such as me) can produce a musical-sounding improvisation. Just randomly picking out notes in the scale, or going up and down parts of the scale, sounds great on top of the I/IV/V-based progressions that make up so much of modern music. And let me tell you, when you're an at-best "advanced beginner" musician, and you solo for the very first time and something that sounds like music comes out, it feels as good as any sex ever did. My interest in the guitar had been flagging a bit, until a teacher taught me the minor pentatonic scale and gave me the opportunity to play some solos on top of his chords; since then, I've wanted to learn guitar, play guitar, etc. pretty much non-stop.
Specifically, the original poster writes: " Intriguingly, the BICEP team has yet to flat-out deny this."
However, the very first link quotes one of the PIs for BICEP by saying: "As for Falkowski's suggestion in his blog that the BICEP has admitted to making a mistake, Pryke says that "is totally false." The BICEP team will not be revising or retracting its work, which it posted to the arXiv preprint server, Pryke says: "We stand by our paper.""
7" is not long enough for a chef's knife. Even 8", the most popular length with home/amateur cooks, is pushing it.
10" is what you want. That might seem long to you, but it won't after you use it for a while (or, as my instructor at L'Academie de Cuisine said, "get over it). And once you get used to it, you'll wonder how you got by without the benefits of a longer knife.
Let me put what I'm trying to say differently.
Imagine that you're presenting an equation to an audience. Consider the following four ways that you might choose to present that equation:
1. You could write it out in front of them on a chalkboard;
2. You could type it into PP or some other display software, live, with the equation being displayed on a screen of some sort as you type it;
3. You could type it into PP or some other display software in advance, and have the equation slowly revealed to the audience as if it was being written out;
4. You could type it into PP or some other display software in advance, and simply have the equation presented immediately in its entirety (akin to the entirety of a PP slide being revealed at once).
With admittedly nothing but personal experience, and the experience of professional acquaintances, to base this on, I claim that these four approaches will differ in the (for lack of a better term) psychological response they obtain from the audience, that those differences have to do with fundamental characteristics of how human beings process their environment, that much of those differences have to do with the psychological perception that the presenter is creating the information being presented at the time the presentation is taking place, and as a result those differences have nothing really to do with the effective use of software.
I could be wrong, but you seem to me to be operating from the premise that the only meaningful difference between communicating via chalkboard and communicating via PP is that PP is more featureful -- hence, referring to using a chalkboard as "regressing to using ONLY CHALK." I don't think that's true at all.
What TFA is suggesting is that communicating by chalkboard has fundamental differences from communicating by PP, in the same way (if not to the same severity) that communicating by in-person lecture is fundamentally different from communicating by a video on YouTube. It's conceivable that you could eliminate some of those differences by using PP in a way similar to how one uses the chalkboard -- for example, by entering content into slides live, in front of your audience -- but it's not obvious to me that there's a gain to doing that.
Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case? I realize they're offering to "give it back" if I win, but that's not relevant.
Presumably, because you agreed to it in the contract between you and the ISP. You know, the clause that says that they're free to alter the terms of service you're required to obey, at any time -- it's in the contract you didn't read, because nobody ever does.
"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." -- John Gall, _Systemantics_