Jennings wasn't even present. A volunteer in his organisation was there, but that's about as close a connection as there is.
If that's the best you can come up with, I rest my case.
At my store, about 1 in 100 use Paypal if given the choice. You're losing out on a lot of business if you don't accept credit cards. Try authorize.net or if you want to stick to Paypal, Payflow.
Paypal is fine for a hobby business, but if you're trying to make a living, you need to take plastic.
I've had a recurring subscription for years using Paypal. I've never had to explicitly approve each and every transaction. I approved it once, and it keeps charging me.
We know for a fact the altered code wasn't used for publication. There's no way to get the graph used in the published study using the altered data.
They even point out the divergence and give some possible reasons why it is occurring. And for all I know, the divergence could already have been explained in the 11 years since publication.
No doubt there is a version of the code where it isn't commented out. It wouldn't have been written if it wasn't used at least temporarily.
But the published paper didn't use the corrected data. Who gives a shit if the code could have been fudging the numbers when the paper it was used on clearly does not use the fudged data?
The code is a non-story.
The offending code was commented out, and the corrected MXD data was not included in the paper. Here's the paper. Figure 6 is the graph produced by the code. None of the corrected data was used.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense. XP is faster than Win7.
Why do Verizon contracts cost so much to get out of? Because it's worth it.
Jennings wasn't even present. A volunteer in his organisation was there, but that's about as close a connection as there is. If that's the best you can come up with, I rest my case.
Why is it I can always guess the political party whenever a politician gets caught doing something sexually depraved?
So how do you normally compile programs, and where are they installed?
I solder my own logic gates.
If it is a hoax, it would definitely be scientifically provable. Kinda makes you wonder why it hasn't, given all the effort put forth to do so.
At my store, about 1 in 100 use Paypal if given the choice. You're losing out on a lot of business if you don't accept credit cards. Try authorize.net or if you want to stick to Paypal, Payflow. Paypal is fine for a hobby business, but if you're trying to make a living, you need to take plastic.
You do know Paypal's SSL cert has been compromised for some time now, right?
I've had a recurring subscription for years using Paypal. I've never had to explicitly approve each and every transaction. I approved it once, and it keeps charging me.
Negotiate in secret all you like, we'll see the finished product when Congress attempts to ratify it.
...is Arrington laying it on a bit thick, firing every bit of ammo he can muster?
That's what you're supposed to do in a lawsuit. You throw whatever you can and see what sticks.
A monopoly giving discounts in exchange for exclusivity is an antitrust violation.
We hear this all the time. By that logic, Microsoft doesn't force you to use Windows, therefore they are not evil.
But they do prevent OEMS from installing other OSes, that is unless they want to pay retail for their Windows licenses.
Patents expire.
We know for a fact the altered code wasn't used for publication. There's no way to get the graph used in the published study using the altered data. They even point out the divergence and give some possible reasons why it is occurring. And for all I know, the divergence could already have been explained in the 11 years since publication.
No doubt there is a version of the code where it isn't commented out. It wouldn't have been written if it wasn't used at least temporarily. But the published paper didn't use the corrected data. Who gives a shit if the code could have been fudging the numbers when the paper it was used on clearly does not use the fudged data?
Where is it not commented out? The variable assignment is the only place it isn't. Every place that variable is actually used is commented out.
The code is a non-story.
The offending code was commented out, and the corrected MXD data was not included in the paper.
Here's the paper. Figure 6 is the graph produced by the code. None of the corrected data was used.
And Modern Warfare 2 hasn't caused a skyrocket in enlistment
America's Army makes enough of a difference in enlistment number for the Army to keep funding it, though.
Playing a game with no "real" end in sight just doesn't seem rewarding to me.
The reward is the fun you have playing. It's about the journey, not the destination.
All things in moderation, including moderation - Mark Twain
KDE does basically the same thing.
Odd, that exactly what happens when I put a CD in my Linux machine.
man apt-cache. That'll tell you how to search the repo for a CD burning program.