Did you actually RTFA? He *couldn't* download a copy of rare alternate versions he had; those are gone, replaced with the standard version of tracks, because the band and song names are the same. Nor could he download his own music, the music he wrote and performed and recorded himself, in the full WAV 16 bit/44.1k form he had it in -- only in a lossy format, because Apple converted the WAVs to a lossy format and threw them away.

First, take your meds and calm down. Second . . .reread the summary. The summary author wrote: "It begs the question whether or not piracy is truly killing the movie business." That phrasing clearly demonstrates that the term is used in the incorrect form (as the equivalent of "raises the question"). HTH.

. . .since that's not what "begs the question" means.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the meaning of words and phrases change over time, grammar nazi, blah blah blah. But the simple fact is that there are LOTS of other phrases that mean what you're trying to say when you misuse "begs the question" and that are thus available to you; but there's no other succinct phrase in English that means what "begs the question" actually means. Re-purposing that phrase weakens the language: it takes away the only useful expression for one concept, and allocates it to something that already has a number of different simple ways to be expressed.

Weebl's animations on YouTube are often a pale shadow of the Flash versions, as YouTube doesn't auto-loop.

I'm serious about the subject line.

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.

That's Option #4.

I'd mod you up if I could.

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.""

The /. editors didn't actually look at the submission before approving it. Yeah, yeah, I know.

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.

What was found was not "direct evidence of the expansion of the universe" -- we have tons of evidence that the universe is expanding -- but rather evidence of an inflationary (e.g. exponential) epoch of expansion early in the Universe's lifetime.

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.