I've abused the hell out of Debian stable more than I care to mention, and it hasn't screwed up once. That is more than I can say for Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE/etc... Each one of those had apps that bombed out on me the first time I ran them, not so with Potato.
Like the other posters have said, the books make money, and that's what I'm talking about. Even though they lose money on the other items, I can't name one other E-Commerce operation doing any better. In fact, most of the others most likely lose more money than Amazon's weakest dept.
The main focus of the article is the fact that commercial sites (primarily e-commerce) are turning away from net-only sales strategies. The random nature of the web and the sheer size of it can't compete in every way with something that sits around your house all day (catalog) or something that pushes content at you without your interaction (television).
I see this "peak", if that's what you want to call it, as a sign of what the true purpose of the internet is: a vast store of information. When you walk into Wal-Mart, are you reviecing information? I don't think so... you're getting bombarded with mental cues to BUY. I doubt the managers of retail stores care at all whether you leave their enlightened. About the only place you may leave more informed is a book store, which is why Amazon is really the only e-commerce operation that's making money: it is closest to the true purpose of the net as a medium. Also, one rarely randomly shops on impulse in a book store, they seek what they are looking for. The net was not designed to manipulate your buying impulses, it was designed for the searching and retrieving of information.
Let the net "peak", maybe all of the profiteers will place their marketing where we want it, instead of leaving fliers between books in our library. It really sickens me that the only standard by which the internet is measured these days is by how much cash it can generate.
24hr/24day books are one of the most expensive, IMO, with Unleashed books probably topping the list. The 24hr books are sold by the pound, you're not paying for a quality book, you're paying for the paper and binding of the useless behemoth.
Umm, you can get rid of the sidebar. Just click the view menu, then uncheck "My Sidebar". You can also get rid of the IM at installation, along with mail, chat, and news. I'm just running the browser and nothing but the browser.
The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.
We are the New Rome. That's what our forefathers intended, although I doubt we'll last as long.
That directory has been there for eons... long before the PR releases came out, and it's always had the permissions set to deny anyone. I love how someone sees a directory structure and knee-jerk posts, just to get a submission in...
This is almost as bad as seeing nightly builds with a milestone number in them and then screaming "Mozilla MXX is out!!"
Ok, insult me if that makes you feel better about yourself, you obviously have some issues about self worth, since you feel the need to display your superiority so strongly. My point wasn't conspiracy, it is the uselessness of the system in the first place. It is based on a time of no mass communication where people may not even have been aware of any candidates other than those within their own state. It's useless now, other than to (sometimes) misrepresent the popular vote.
Also, electors are controlled by their parties. If their party does not win, whats to stop them from voting against the popular will. I wasn't suggesting some vast government conspiracy, but class division in society suggests that your average elector is not your average american citizen, and therefore may have patrician views that don't reflect the popular will. In a race as close as this one, just a few faithless electors could change things.
That is my entire point. I don't count electors as part of some great conspiracy. I count them as relics of an outdated voting system. Yes, it is considered "bad form" for them to vote against the popular vote, but they can. Also, I find it amusing that you refer to my comment as paranoid, since you're the one saying that they would vote for Bush because they are chosen by the victorious party. If you're against Bush, then that is a paranoid statemtent, if you are for him, then it is an arrogant one.
I fail to see the use of your "civics lesson" since you didn't address anything I said, just made up some things to addresss.
Yeah, that's really what holds the Libertarian party back, IMO. Too many psycho militia guys support the libertarian idea. I honestly think the militia guys would have a decent message, if they weren't all a bunch of white-supremacists and religious zealots they might find their message a little better recieved.
I'm wondering if the only reason Browne didn't beat Buchanan is because of all the "accidental" Buchanan votes ; )
A "faithless" elector isn't really a title, it's more of a name calling thing ; ). A faithless elector is one who votes against the popular vote of their party vote.
It still doesn't mean anything if you support anyone other than one of the Republicrats. So don't get so idealist until you consider the rest of us "fringe extremists".
Actually, for all you know, Florida's Electoral could vote for whomever they damn well please. There is no law requiring them to go with the popular vote, it's just a matter of courtesy when they usually do.
Electorals can vote against public opinion in the case we plebes vote in someone that the current government thinks is a threat to the status-quo. How's that for democracy?
That was pedantic at best. Your first example doesn't really illustrate a "standard" either. The point is, if you compare IE to Netscape or even iCab, IE will have the overwelming amount of standards compliance. For some reason, people like you have to get all upset when MS does something good for a change. It's almost as if you would prefer them to do a shitty job, just so you can feel superior in not using them (which you probably do in some form anyway).
I'd really like for you to point out what IE's "lack of standards compliance" is? I love it when people spout that without even thinking. You point out what it is lacking that another browser does have. Can you do it? I doubt it.
That's pretty funny. You mention playing nice with HTML 4. Well... CSS is a fundamental aspect of HTML 4! Without it, you would have HTML 4 with no colors, no fonts, no nothing really. Just a few images and Times font. Hell, if you want that use Lynx.
If you think no one is using CSS, then you're simply not looking.
Because you stole this entire story verbatim from a poster on Kur5hin (which he has also mentioned in reply to you). I provide evidence against your pathetic, karma-whoring, plagiaristic ass.
Please note the time on this message (10:02:33 AM CST), and then note the time on the parent (12:06PM CDT).
You didn't even have the decency to change it one bit. If karma means that much to you, at least use your own effort and imagination, don't steal it from someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I've abused the hell out of Debian stable more than I care to mention, and it hasn't screwed up once. That is more than I can say for Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE/etc... Each one of those had apps that bombed out on me the first time I ran them, not so with Potato.
Porn sites are not any more "E-Commerce" than a brick and mortar theater is "Retail". The comparison is moot.
Like the other posters have said, the books make money, and that's what I'm talking about. Even though they lose money on the other items, I can't name one other E-Commerce operation doing any better. In fact, most of the others most likely lose more money than Amazon's weakest dept.
Umm... it's being researched? Hell, it's been done for years.
The main focus of the article is the fact that commercial sites (primarily e-commerce) are turning away from net-only sales strategies. The random nature of the web and the sheer size of it can't compete in every way with something that sits around your house all day (catalog) or something that pushes content at you without your interaction (television).
I see this "peak", if that's what you want to call it, as a sign of what the true purpose of the internet is: a vast store of information. When you walk into Wal-Mart, are you reviecing information? I don't think so... you're getting bombarded with mental cues to BUY. I doubt the managers of retail stores care at all whether you leave their enlightened. About the only place you may leave more informed is a book store, which is why Amazon is really the only e-commerce operation that's making money: it is closest to the true purpose of the net as a medium. Also, one rarely randomly shops on impulse in a book store, they seek what they are looking for. The net was not designed to manipulate your buying impulses, it was designed for the searching and retrieving of information.
Let the net "peak", maybe all of the profiteers will place their marketing where we want it, instead of leaving fliers between books in our library. It really sickens me that the only standard by which the internet is measured these days is by how much cash it can generate.
24hr/24day books are one of the most expensive, IMO, with Unleashed books probably topping the list. The 24hr books are sold by the pound, you're not paying for a quality book, you're paying for the paper and binding of the useless behemoth.
Don't forget "loose", as in:
There's not a whole lot of info on Pioneer 6, but what is you can find is here and here.
Pioneer 10 is the sexier of ventures, since it's now the furthest away, and therefore gets more attention.
Umm, you can get rid of the sidebar. Just click the view menu, then uncheck "My Sidebar". You can also get rid of the IM at installation, along with mail, chat, and news. I'm just running the browser and nothing but the browser.
We are the New Rome. That's what our forefathers intended, although I doubt we'll last as long.
That directory has been there for eons... long before the PR releases came out, and it's always had the permissions set to deny anyone. I love how someone sees a directory structure and knee-jerk posts, just to get a submission in...
This is almost as bad as seeing nightly builds with a milestone number in them and then screaming "Mozilla MXX is out!!"
Ok, insult me if that makes you feel better about yourself, you obviously have some issues about self worth, since you feel the need to display your superiority so strongly. My point wasn't conspiracy, it is the uselessness of the system in the first place. It is based on a time of no mass communication where people may not even have been aware of any candidates other than those within their own state. It's useless now, other than to (sometimes) misrepresent the popular vote.
Also, electors are controlled by their parties. If their party does not win, whats to stop them from voting against the popular will. I wasn't suggesting some vast government conspiracy, but class division in society suggests that your average elector is not your average american citizen, and therefore may have patrician views that don't reflect the popular will. In a race as close as this one, just a few faithless electors could change things.
That is my entire point. I don't count electors as part of some great conspiracy. I count them as relics of an outdated voting system. Yes, it is considered "bad form" for them to vote against the popular vote, but they can. Also, I find it amusing that you refer to my comment as paranoid, since you're the one saying that they would vote for Bush because they are chosen by the victorious party. If you're against Bush, then that is a paranoid statemtent, if you are for him, then it is an arrogant one.
I fail to see the use of your "civics lesson" since you didn't address anything I said, just made up some things to addresss.
Yeah, that's really what holds the Libertarian party back, IMO. Too many psycho militia guys support the libertarian idea. I honestly think the militia guys would have a decent message, if they weren't all a bunch of white-supremacists and religious zealots they might find their message a little better recieved.
I'm wondering if the only reason Browne didn't beat Buchanan is because of all the "accidental" Buchanan votes ; )
A "faithless" elector isn't really a title, it's more of a name calling thing ; ). A faithless elector is one who votes against the popular vote of their party vote.
It still doesn't mean anything if you support anyone other than one of the Republicrats. So don't get so idealist until you consider the rest of us "fringe extremists".
Actually, for all you know, Florida's Electoral could vote for whomever they damn well please. There is no law requiring them to go with the popular vote, it's just a matter of courtesy when they usually do.
Electorals can vote against public opinion in the case we plebes vote in someone that the current government thinks is a threat to the status-quo. How's that for democracy?
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot and you don't know what you're talking about
Just some of the sites using css.
That was just the A's. Please think before you spout such blatant misinformation as this.
That was pedantic at best. Your first example doesn't really illustrate a "standard" either. The point is, if you compare IE to Netscape or even iCab, IE will have the overwelming amount of standards compliance. For some reason, people like you have to get all upset when MS does something good for a change. It's almost as if you would prefer them to do a shitty job, just so you can feel superior in not using them (which you probably do in some form anyway).
I'd really like for you to point out what IE's "lack of standards compliance" is? I love it when people spout that without even thinking. You point out what it is lacking that another browser does have. Can you do it? I doubt it.
That's pretty funny. You mention playing nice with HTML 4. Well... CSS is a fundamental aspect of HTML 4! Without it, you would have HTML 4 with no colors, no fonts, no nothing really. Just a few images and Times font. Hell, if you want that use Lynx.
If you think no one is using CSS, then you're simply not looking.
Umm... "knife the baby"? Where in the hell have you heard that?
He was also a womanizing alcoholic, but otherwise a reasonably decent fellow.
Also, while disputable, it is pretty widely held that Washington was pretty much "placed" as the first president just to get the ball rolling.
Because you stole this entire story verbatim from a poster on Kur5hin (which he has also mentioned in reply to you). I provide evidence against your pathetic, karma-whoring, plagiaristic ass.
Please note the time on this message (10:02:33 AM CST), and then note the time on the parent (12:06PM CDT).
You didn't even have the decency to change it one bit. If karma means that much to you, at least use your own effort and imagination, don't steal it from someone else.
I imagine that you have some information in a cookie or whatnot that others may not have, which would therefore require more information from them.