No. This is applying to reviewers that are getting the reviewed item for FREE OF CHARGE. If you bought the item, then you don't have to bother. The point of this is to make bias due to incentives given by the company/manufacturer a bit more obvious.
For example, rewind to 2007. Say John Smith is set on reviewing HP computer that is running Vista and doesn't know much about the system requirements. He's not really looking to spend too much, but is still buying one of the newer computers Vista is being sold on. Because of not wanting to spend extra money, he decides he will go with the option to have only 1gb of ram on the computer. HP knows the system requirements better than John smith does for Vista and says hey, we'll upgrade that to 4gb of ram for free.
Because of this possibly subtle but important difference, John's experience of running Vista would be much different than the average buyer only buying a computer with 1gb of ram; and publish his review accordingly. HP and Vista get their good review for throwing in the extra ram, and the average consumer suffers with the computer with less ram, and HP still receiving money from that customer.
Was John's intent to be biased or show Vista in a better light? No. But it will show something of the intents of the companies, if not John by notion of this little factoid.
Well see here, you actually created a charge for somebody else to pay. The first thing of know-how to piracy is that stealing is removing an item (what you did). Piracy is making a copy of an item (downloading). If you're trying to justify actually stealing something, do so in a way that's at least somewhat logical.
Well if they're being fixed what's the problem? If nobody knew about them in the first place and they're spotting them and resolving them, who the hell cares?
Because not all of us run Linux and this still affects average users that are the lemmings who give the most market share. Mozilla doesn't want to be blamed for the whole browser crashing when it's really Adobe's fault and yet Microsoft and Google have precautions to avoid a full crash. When the competitor has something you don't that allows for a smoother user experience, the users are more likely to stray away from your more rigid product.
Not an attack, just curiosity; why do you keep that many tabs open? If I'm looking through my RSS I'll have maybe 20-30 open but they all get closed out within 15 minutes down back to about 8 or 9 tops.
Yeah, couldn't download it on Firefox 3 even though it gave me a key; the download now link wouldn't go anywhere. Apparently you need an Active X controller installed.
I think by recovery disk they just meant partition. Many "recovery discs" are typically just automated scripts to replace files in one partition with files in a hidden partition on the hard drive; as was the case on an old Dell that I bought 4 years ago. Use some more thought, they used a flash drive, do you really believe that while doing that, the CD in the drive wasn't finalized and was directed to burn extra files to it?
Slashdot Mirror
The phrase, "With great power, comes great risk," seems to apply.
Could this then actually lead to the 'chip in the brain' concept and create a human/robot hybrid? This is getting into some scary territory...
I agree. I would sell it and use the money to buy a media center pc. It's the best option if you're looking to get purpose out of it in this case.
No. This is applying to reviewers that are getting the reviewed item for FREE OF CHARGE. If you bought the item, then you don't have to bother. The point of this is to make bias due to incentives given by the company/manufacturer a bit more obvious. For example, rewind to 2007. Say John Smith is set on reviewing HP computer that is running Vista and doesn't know much about the system requirements. He's not really looking to spend too much, but is still buying one of the newer computers Vista is being sold on. Because of not wanting to spend extra money, he decides he will go with the option to have only 1gb of ram on the computer. HP knows the system requirements better than John smith does for Vista and says hey, we'll upgrade that to 4gb of ram for free. Because of this possibly subtle but important difference, John's experience of running Vista would be much different than the average buyer only buying a computer with 1gb of ram; and publish his review accordingly. HP and Vista get their good review for throwing in the extra ram, and the average consumer suffers with the computer with less ram, and HP still receiving money from that customer. Was John's intent to be biased or show Vista in a better light? No. But it will show something of the intents of the companies, if not John by notion of this little factoid.
And this is where the ambiguity of the word comes in.
Huh. If I had mod points today I would surely award you some.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Classic.
Not giving credit is actually different from removing credit.
Well see here, you actually created a charge for somebody else to pay. The first thing of know-how to piracy is that stealing is removing an item (what you did). Piracy is making a copy of an item (downloading). If you're trying to justify actually stealing something, do so in a way that's at least somewhat logical.
Well if they're being fixed what's the problem? If nobody knew about them in the first place and they're spotting them and resolving them, who the hell cares?
Why is this not in idle?
Thank you for putting it into a clearer perspective.
Because not all of us run Linux and this still affects average users that are the lemmings who give the most market share. Mozilla doesn't want to be blamed for the whole browser crashing when it's really Adobe's fault and yet Microsoft and Google have precautions to avoid a full crash. When the competitor has something you don't that allows for a smoother user experience, the users are more likely to stray away from your more rigid product.
Mod parent up. Speeds need to be faster and caps need to be lifted before this ever becomes a reality.
Not an attack, just curiosity; why do you keep that many tabs open? If I'm looking through my RSS I'll have maybe 20-30 open but they all get closed out within 15 minutes down back to about 8 or 9 tops.
Touche, although I was being literal more-so on the biological front.
Have you ever seen rats in a dealership?
Yeah, couldn't download it on Firefox 3 even though it gave me a key; the download now link wouldn't go anywhere. Apparently you need an Active X controller installed.
Agreed, I re-read the sentence to make sure there wasn't sarcasm laced in there by the author; apparently not.
Did you miss the part where he said "going to become"? SSD will eventually fall in price, as is the trend with most products.
I think by recovery disk they just meant partition. Many "recovery discs" are typically just automated scripts to replace files in one partition with files in a hidden partition on the hard drive; as was the case on an old Dell that I bought 4 years ago. Use some more thought, they used a flash drive, do you really believe that while doing that, the CD in the drive wasn't finalized and was directed to burn extra files to it?
Yeah, try for of only being out for less than a week as well.
As much as Apple's business model tends to piss me off, I think I'm with you on this one. Sadly I lack mod-points today.
My mistake.