By definition, what things sell for now is what they are worth now.
Why don't you go to the next board meeting of a typical publicly traded company, offer to buy them out by giving them its liquidation value in cash, and see what happens.
Competition?
The headline should read "Microsoft to replace one TSMC chip with different TSMC chip."
We'll be fine, then. There's lots more gold than Sarah Conner clones.
Precisely.
There are 1500 genes involved. As effects are likely not merely down to specific genes, but gene interactions, you're going to need a model that can handle 2^1500 different permutations. That's simply not something that is classifiable.
As far as gene therapies are concerned, since autism seems to involve combining elements of Neanderthal neurology with homo sapiens neurology, the obvious fix would be to add further Neanderthal genes where combinations are known to produce adverse effects.
What did you expect from an algorithm named after the Roman Empire?
I assumed that they're dividing the entire cost of creating, testing, packaging and delivering updates by the number of GB distributed. ISP fees would be a tiny fraction of that.
Why would anyone calculate such a silly metric in the first place? It sounds to me like the kind of thing an accountant would think up.
There are 1500 genes associated with autism and nobody has them all. This gives us 2^1500 different forms of the condition. So, yeah, more than one.
Autism is definitely a complex phenomenon. The number of people diagnosed today in the US is about the same as was being diagnosed in Europe 25 years ago, so no, I don't think anyone is jumping onto bandwagons, it's just Americans are being less stupid.
If human activity was on a fixed time, that point in time could never be visible to astronomers, at least not unless LIGO was rebuilt on the moon. This doesn't necessarily offer benefits, but it would be sensible if this was a possibility that was considered.
True, it means we can't use gravitational triangulation, but the detector is nothing like close enough to being sensitive enough to be useful there.
Either way, between radio astronomy, optical astronony, and gravitational astronomy now being largely defunct on Earth due to humans messing things up, we really need detectors on the moon or on Mars before we can do anything significantly beyond what we've already done. Space telescopes are just too small and although you could precisely measure 3D positions with sufficient precision to do interferometry, it would not be easy.
Basically, each space telescope would need to measure acceleration with incredible sensitivity and time with incredible precision, record over a very long time, then have a means of collecting the data on physical media and bring it back to Earth for combining with the other recordings. Real-time interferometry wouldn't be possible.
You're much much better off building your telescopes on the surface of a solid planetary mass like the moon or Mars.
When some people discover the truth, they just can't understand why everybody isn't eager to hear it.