@bckseymour - that's a rounding endorsement of a product that you will continue to use despite or in spite of any objective scientific evidence of effectiveness. You are indeed the perfect customer.

The people who "believe" in this product, will still believe in it. They'll deny the facts and rely on their personal experience - the makers will see no drop in profits. Maybe some people will realize that they are fooling themselves but most will continue to buy the product. It is unethical to produce a product that's main benefit is psychological and to sell it for a substantial profit. Sell Cold FX lite for $1 for 100 doses.

Why let facts get in the way of policy? I doubt many politicians understand science - its not just Harper. The level of ignorance is remarkable. Something like 40% of Americans believe the earth was created 5,000 years ago.

This is exactly what has not been scientifically proven. Seriously, how can you know if you were going to develop a cold if you don't? You may feel it is working but the ingredients in Cold FX are simply "feel good" and have no basis in science. No one is stopping people buying the product, but there is no evidence that is is effective. I am sure there are happy customers and the only harm appears to be to the pocketbook.

The makers of Cold FX use marketing and celebrity sponsorship to sell modern day snake oil (or maybe chicken soup). They know full well that they cannot go wrong. People who buy it will convince themselves that it has prevented or mitigated a cold. When you have someone like Don Cherry endorse your product (just as he defends fighting in hockey to sell Knock'Em Sock 'Em videos), you know the company has no respect for the facts or their customers and is taking the "who can yell loudest" approach to supporting their case. Celebrity endorsements are pure shill and the products they typically endorse are as vacuous as their ethics.

No - its designed to work on both but was demonstrated on a prototype tablet from Samsung. The glossiest "innovations" in Windows 8 are based on its touch interfaces. Windows 7 had touch input methods too but in Windows 8, these are integrated. Whether people actually use a single device much in two modes is unclear (doubtful I think) but you have the option...

Beats me how a company can spend a kajillion man-hours developing a new version of an operating system, put it on a bunch of non-optimized tablets and then expect the press to come to intelligent evaluations after a matter of hours. This was clearly aimed at creating buzz around Windows 8 just like concept cars. Thanks Harry, for taking your time. The videos of demos posted on Engadget and ThisIsMyNext don't exactly gel with their actual reviews the on-stage difficulties by the highly prepped Microsoft demonstrators show that these are early days. There is plenty of time to improve the software and the lack of definitive dates for the various QA stages indicates Microsoft is not going to put this out prematurely. What they have done is two things. Firstly, they HAD to get something out there for people to talk about. They've had sweet nothing to talk about in the tablet space since the iPad blew away the Courier "concept" and that must have hurt. Now people at least have something to talk up. Secondly, they have declared their approach to be a Swiss Army knife - a converged OS that can power one device. You can have it all - no need for a PC and a tablet. We'll see how that works out (I think not well - there will be too many compromises).

I know its an exaggeration, but Samsung seems to be giving more devices away at developers meetings than they sell in retail (Google and now BUILD). Obviously, they've been paid for these demo units, but they seem to be willing to do anything to help out OS developers - aside from their biggest actual client and court buddy of course, Apple.

Apple is not going to buy Hulu because if it did, the other partners would tear up their agreements. Apple is the mammoth in the room as far as they are concerned. Instead of seeing a saviour, they are afraid to go to sleep in case they get "sat" on in the night. Personally, I wish Apple would quit waiting and fired a few tranquilizers.

I'd argue that "Reality TV" is evidence of devolution back to the primordial soup of TV.

Netflix only has its broad content as a hedge by the content providers against Apple. I'd bet that the content agreements specifically include termination should Apple (or Google) become significant shareholders. This basically hamstrings Netflix. I would also question whether a company is truly disruptive in an economic, long term sense, when they are hardly making money. They are a $12 billion company but have a P/E of 57. The profit for Q1 was $60 million on $704 million revenue. In 2010, Comcast made $15 billion profit on revenue of nearly $40 billion. Netflix made $320 million profit on $2.1 billion in revenue in 2010.