Modern IQ tests consist of multiple sub tests - 15 for the WAIS IV. General intelligence "g" or a combines score is a weighted sum of the abilites in all these sub tests. A competent psychologist will look at the sub test scores for a richer interpretation, but that doesn't mean that the combined score is useless. General intelligence is based on the observation that people who are smart in one area tend to be smart in other areas (unfair though this may seem). Of course, this isn't always the case and sometimes people who are smart in one are are not smart in other areas. It is more accurate to think of modern IQ tests as a combined measure than as a single measure.
Think of it like CPUs. A combined benchmark like specmark or passmark can not fully characterise CPU performance, and sure, if I want a precise comparison, I need to define exactly what my load will be, yet you will be hard pressed to find a work load which a Pentium 3 performs better than an I7. So it IS useful to have aggregate measures of performance - so long as they are no over interpreted.
Some people don't like IQ tests because they see them as discriminating against socially disadvantaged groups, or racial groups. It is true that there is an issue of cultural bias in IQ tests, which people try an eliminate but can never do so completely. However, used properly, IQ tests can actually help people from disadvantaged backgrounds by identifying those with academic ability which may not be manifesting itself as academic performance for other reasons.
old school AC transformer units have miserable efficiency and are both heavy and bulky.
I'm not quite sure what qualifies as "old school" but AC transformers even at 50/60 Hz can be quite efficient though I grant you, they are heavy and bulky.
Apart from size and mass the big advantage of switch mod power supplies is that they can be regulated with no appreciable loss in efficiency. The alternative is pretty much a linear regulator and that combination (of transformer and linear regulator) tends to have miserable efficiency.
So you would say it is OK for a hotel owner to refuse service to blacks?
It's like virtual particles. Particle (cash) and anti particle (debt) pairs can spontaneously pop into existence. So all we need is a black hole to swallow the debt and cash is the equivalent of Hawking radiation apparently emitted by a black hole. I surmise that the worlds current financial problems are due to the black hole(s) finally evaporating.
Copyright does not require reasonability. [...].
But it should. There are two principles. One is that if the copyright owner is refusing to sell someone a copy, then they are not losing anything by that person making a copy. The second is that distribution agreements are restraint of trade.
Interesting, but I don't quite buy this as a definition of religion or as a restriction on the scope of science. The study of how things should be seems to me like moral philosophy. Religion generally (always?) includes some belief in the supernatural. I would argue that claims that a system of moral philosophy are divinely inspired is actually an impediment to greater moral understanding.
Also, science can have something to say about morality by conducting experiments on how people behave when faced with moral dilemmas. True this doesn't tell you how things "should" (in an absolute sense) be, but it does tell you something about what it is to be human. A female spider eats the male after mating. This is unacceptable for humans. No one criticises the spider. What is moral for a spider is not moral for a human. Ergo, what it moral for a human is in the nature of humans and the nature of humans is discoverable by science.
There is again a BIG difference you seem to be missing,either you simply don't see it or are trolling, can't be sure. you see if a proprietary software house ignores the users? Well then they lose money and sometimes a LOT of money, and that tends to put the fire under one's ass!
That is pretty much the "product which makes the company money, and a lot of customers experience the bug, and it is serious" case I mentioned. So yes, I do see.
The developer has moved on and nobody wants to fix the shitter so after FOUR versions it STILL hasn't been fixed!
Actually I do agree that is probably the case and I never said I didn't. What I don't agree with is your claim that this one anecdote somehow proves the general case and your dismissal of the one study cited as being less relevant than your opinions on human nature.
What you've missed is that the developers of proprietary software move on too (sometime the individuals, sometimes the whole company). Generally the customer does not pay the developers. The developers company pays the developers, and they will only pay them to fix your bug if there is nothing of higher value to the company for them to do. Yes, if it is product which makes the company money, and a lot of customers experience the bug, and it is serious, then it will probably get fixed. Otherwise maybe not. The way bugs get "chosen" to be fixed for FOSS software is different, but it is not clear in general whether it results in more buggy code. Unfortunately, "common sense" about these things is often wrong, which is why people do studies and try and get objective data.
Fixing FOSS yourself is an option, so is paying someone else to fix it and so is complaining, waiting and hoping. Granted, these approaches all have problems: requiring skills and application; requiring deep pockets; or are unlikely to be successful. With proprietary software, you are pretty much restricted to "complaining, waiting and hoping". You might hope that your complaining will have more effect, but that is really only true if you are a big customer or there are lots like you.
When I was young I proudly identified a bug in a proprietary compiler. The company I worked for hadn't bought the support contract. I naively thought that the vendor would want to know that their compiler had a bug (with a nice test case) but they wouldn't even take the bug report without a support contract, let alone fix it!
China's growth rate can't continue forever. But, China only needs a per capita GDP of 1/4 of the US GDP per capita to be "the worlds largest economy". There is a strong possibility (but of course no guarantee) that they will continue to have rapid growth until at least that point.