When you say "rigorous.....
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Learn the concept of marginal returns. I am quite certain Apple could buy up more production capacity. I am equally certain it could not do so in an economically viable way. Not all demand is profitable. The other makers are equally constrained, which is why none of them can produce a viable tablet to compete on price with iPad.
What about those of us who don't want our eyeballs sold?
Actually, catapulting something into The Sun is much harder than it looks. Just sayin'...
Are you serious? You don't think Gizmodo, Engadget, Ars, and all the rest wouldn't be all over this like a rash? And Giz has a track record of paying cold hard cash for stories...
I suspect your pants are on fire.
Yes. I'm sure dissing pose2own was foremost in Apple's thinking when planning its release schedule.
No, they showed that it is less effective at primary prevention the previously supposed, (but still very effective at secondary prevention).
The trick is to develop the hypothesis properly. Also, there is a lot more to "proving" than a null hypothesis - that is just a useful logical device, especially when using statisitcal significance as a metric (as well as helping to check that the hypothesis is amenable to falsification).
And the statins I take are generic and long out of patent, so "big pharma" is way past caring about them.
Real science is hard and takes time. What is taught in a few paragraphs today took Newton a lifetime to perceive.
Only if you use the mathematical definition of proof, which science does not.
"Proof" in science, is more-or-less synonymous with "test". As in proving grounds, proof-spirit, the exception that proves (ie tests the limit of) the rule...
That is rather Apple's point: the others are living off the goodwill created by Apple's innovation ("passing off", in the parlance). ie, Apple's argument is that it has become generic because others lifted it. And I believe US trademark law operates on a "use it or lose it" principle that requires trademarks to be defended actively.
Also, I would bet a reasonable amount of cash that if you did a survey of non-geek smartphone users, most would think "iPhone" to the prompt "App store".
Coders, coding. Or "God" if you prefer. Computer viruses: the creationists' wet dream.