Which is not unique to Wikipedia. Nothing is stopping troll blogger from blogging about made up fact A, which is picked up by the slightly more reputable reporter, and so on and so on.
But at the end of the day the good journalists, and institutions like Wikipedia are supposed to keep decent standards alive, so that when you have some information you find a real source . An official presidential announcement/entry in the nobel prize official website. These sources have zero chance of getting their information from a bad wikipedia entry, and they do not get news off of wikipedia, they create it themselves.
"This coloration comes from the presence of bile alone. In time, as the body starts expelling bilirubin from dead red blood cells, it acquires its familiar brown appearance, unless the baby is breast feeding, in which case it remains soft, pale yellowish, and not completely malodorous until the baby begins to eat significant amounts of other food."
How does that make sense, breast feeding prevents red blood cells for dying?
Also, that is wrong, I have seen many babies, and Yellow Poop is just right away, not for months afterwards while they continue to only drink milk.
Well there is your problem right there.
This Wikipedia scare mongering creates a cloak masking real problems. You are never going to stop, nor should you, people form using the most comprehensive information source ever. Complaining about how it is not perfect is just hurting any valid points to be made.
The point being, Wikipedia is not a source of anything, it is the product of a series of sources. So you do not cite Wikipedia, you cite the article it points to. If people had told me that back when I was in school, I would actually used that idea to get better sources, instead of just scoffing at the idea of not using Wikipedia (which was and continues to be a ridiculous idea).
When they say 3D printed do they mean a metal mill, or can we 3D print with any random material now?
And if so, why not use the far more tried tested, and better alternative milling?
Yes there are a few preliminary requirements but they are all pretty common.
First off you must have been with Verizon for a few years, great customer loyalty you have got there Verizon...
Secondly you have to have used over 5 gigabytes that month. That is something you can do in about 5 hours, anyone who has even heard of throttling used that or many times that per week...
The last one I know nothing about, but apparently Verizon has enough trouble with infrastructure that they are deploying throttling schemes to get around upgrading their stuff so being connected to one under heavy demand must happen often enough.
Yes, and stock price is not cemented to profits....
Stock climbs as the influence of the company climbs. FB is a famous company that never made any profits, or even showed any ability to ever produce profits, that still had a tremendously good stock evolution.
Or you could just look at Amazon's Stock Price, to see that it has been climbing and climbing and climbing, making their investors money (over the last 4 years alone it has gone up to 5 times its starting value).
Yes, between the profits that they could be making, and them breaking even, they are "losing" money in some senses. But in terms of real world "losses" , they are not swelling or piling up, they are just spending their money as fast as it is coming in; And at the end of the year breaking even (within a percentage of a 1 percent).
Umm...
Well, to be clear. They are spending money to develop an iron grip on the industry in the long run. They are willing to lose money, not to be fair to customers, but to develope possibly the strongest monopoly that every has existed, and if left up to Amazon ever will exist.
"If you must, do the surgery that is reversible - they insert a small piece of plastic that corrects the lens shape."
I guarantee you even that can go horribly wrong. It does not matter if it is reversible or not, their is always a margin for error.
Have companies been allowed to pay damages, as outlined and verified by the government in a legal suit, in product?
Giving aways games is a marketing ploy, not a punishment.
This has to be one of the worse responses of all time. I have no idea how well Dropbox protects their users privacy, but the suggestion that if users do not trust them they can use their own encryption, but then none of their features will work is just stupid.
The article starts off saying that they have been decriminalised, but then the government is still calling them illegal and apparently more people might be sued over this "decriminalised" behaviour.
So what exactly is the stare of the legality of pirating in Britain?
Slashdot Mirror
I was expecting to be be far bulkier than steel wool, but that is basically just copper wool.
Which is not unique to Wikipedia. Nothing is stopping troll blogger from blogging about made up fact A, which is picked up by the slightly more reputable reporter, and so on and so on. But at the end of the day the good journalists, and institutions like Wikipedia are supposed to keep decent standards alive, so that when you have some information you find a real source . An official presidential announcement/entry in the nobel prize official website. These sources have zero chance of getting their information from a bad wikipedia entry, and they do not get news off of wikipedia, they create it themselves.
"This coloration comes from the presence of bile alone. In time, as the body starts expelling bilirubin from dead red blood cells, it acquires its familiar brown appearance, unless the baby is breast feeding, in which case it remains soft, pale yellowish, and not completely malodorous until the baby begins to eat significant amounts of other food." How does that make sense, breast feeding prevents red blood cells for dying? Also, that is wrong, I have seen many babies, and Yellow Poop is just right away, not for months afterwards while they continue to only drink milk.
Well there is your problem right there. This Wikipedia scare mongering creates a cloak masking real problems. You are never going to stop, nor should you, people form using the most comprehensive information source ever. Complaining about how it is not perfect is just hurting any valid points to be made. The point being, Wikipedia is not a source of anything, it is the product of a series of sources. So you do not cite Wikipedia, you cite the article it points to. If people had told me that back when I was in school, I would actually used that idea to get better sources, instead of just scoffing at the idea of not using Wikipedia (which was and continues to be a ridiculous idea).
Still, He stated that it was a a monetary decision, and the clerk did not even offer some 50% deal for 3 months.
I think that might be against Youtube TOS.
Hey, Sharknado is a classic.
since when does frosting and marshmallows have fiber?
Which brings up an interesting question. If a corporation is a person, can it hold a government office?
How do you intend for them to fine a company for buying advertisement space, and using it?
Last time I worked in a corporate environment I heard a few stories about the tactic of continually clicking on competitors ads to cost them money.
When they say 3D printed do they mean a metal mill, or can we 3D print with any random material now? And if so, why not use the far more tried tested, and better alternative milling?
Yes there are a few preliminary requirements but they are all pretty common.
First off you must have been with Verizon for a few years, great customer loyalty you have got there Verizon...
Secondly you have to have used over 5 gigabytes that month. That is something you can do in about 5 hours, anyone who has even heard of throttling used that or many times that per week...
The last one I know nothing about, but apparently Verizon has enough trouble with infrastructure that they are deploying throttling schemes to get around upgrading their stuff so being connected to one under heavy demand must happen often enough.
Looking into this, this ip address has been vandalising Wikipedia for over 4 years now...
Wikipedia does not ban people who repeatedly vandalise their site, over a period of years?
Actually it was referring to the reason behind purchasing 1300 ebooks.
Yes, and stock price is not cemented to profits.... Stock climbs as the influence of the company climbs. FB is a famous company that never made any profits, or even showed any ability to ever produce profits, that still had a tremendously good stock evolution. Or you could just look at Amazon's Stock Price, to see that it has been climbing and climbing and climbing, making their investors money (over the last 4 years alone it has gone up to 5 times its starting value).
Why?
That is not a loss, that is breaking even.
Yes, between the profits that they could be making, and them breaking even, they are "losing" money in some senses. But in terms of real world "losses" , they are not swelling or piling up, they are just spending their money as fast as it is coming in; And at the end of the year breaking even (within a percentage of a 1 percent).
Umm... Well, to be clear. They are spending money to develop an iron grip on the industry in the long run. They are willing to lose money, not to be fair to customers, but to develope possibly the strongest monopoly that every has existed, and if left up to Amazon ever will exist.
The poems do not even rhyme.
"If you must, do the surgery that is reversible - they insert a small piece of plastic that corrects the lens shape." I guarantee you even that can go horribly wrong. It does not matter if it is reversible or not, their is always a margin for error.
Have companies been allowed to pay damages, as outlined and verified by the government in a legal suit, in product? Giving aways games is a marketing ploy, not a punishment.
This has to be one of the worse responses of all time. I have no idea how well Dropbox protects their users privacy, but the suggestion that if users do not trust them they can use their own encryption, but then none of their features will work is just stupid.
The article starts off saying that they have been decriminalised, but then the government is still calling them illegal and apparently more people might be sued over this "decriminalised" behaviour. So what exactly is the stare of the legality of pirating in Britain?
I imagine searching an entire hard-drive would be broad enough to catch most /. users.