Trade Wars, Land of Devastation, L.O.R.D... those were the days. Offering people something they can jump into with no prior social contacts--and a reason to keep coming back every day--I think, would still be a way to bring people in.
Even though modem use is no longer an issue, a time limit every day keeps people coming back day after day.
Computing which scripting language is best by character count? What a brilliant idea!
Sometime next week, I'll post an article definitively stating which is the best work of literature in the world. My criterion will be the one that has the most words.
As soon as I saw this topic my eyes lit up as I thought "EU2!" I was interested in history back in high school, but that faded to other priorities as I went through college. But playing EU2, with its historical events, leaders, and territories, really fired me up again--I ended up reading a bunch of library books about my favorite EU2 nation, Castile/Spain.
Nothing to stop one from selling one's bottle cap collection, which *just* *happens* to have 150 caps collected from Pepsi in the Feb-Mar 2004 time period, though.
We suck at seeing blue because, of the three kinds of cones in the retina (most sensitive to red, green, and blue) light, we have far fewer of the blue kind than the other two. The two kinds of red/green color blindness do not impair visual acuity because the pigment from red cones is used in the green cones, or vice versa; so all the cones are still useful, but all respond to the same thing. There is a very rare form of color blindness in which (it is suspected) the blue cones have no pigment at all. Because there are so few blue cones, even though they are completely useless, vision is not harmed much.
I don't think he really disparages the "nearlynet" (what an awful word coinage) so much as he realizes that the "permanet" (a little better) is an ideal. Who wouldn't want their cell phone to work in Antarctica? As it turns out, the obvious answer is: People who don't want to pay triple for that ability.
I would also mention that it's a lot easier, in general, to start with a cheap system and improve it than it is to start with a good system and cheapen it. Think of the Internet vs. the ISS.
I think it makes a lot of sense to have primarily positive reviews. Eighty kazillion books come out every week, and most of them I've never heard of. If someone writes a review of a book I've never heard of and tells me not to buy it--what have I gained? Is it really worth the trouble for a volunteer to write a review for that book? The only time I can think of that being worthwhile is if a widely-anticipated book or revision turned out to be a real dog. Say, if Programming Perl, 4th ed. was lousy because it was written by CowboyNeal instead of Larry Wall.
On the other hand, I appreciate having my attention called to a *good* book which I would otherwise have been unaware of, as positive reviews tend to do.
Methanol on an airplane is hardly anything to worry about. It's no more dangerous than ethanol, which of course the airline will happily let you drink as much of as you want as long as you keep paying. It burns, but so does ethanol and paper.
Explosion? Nah. It would be a very difficult task to get so much methanol vapor that an explosion would be much more than alarming pop--the same pop you could get by inflating a barf bag with your breath, twisting off the opening, and POPping it with your fist.
Actually, you don't need to pay twice. As with the basic 3E books, the 3.5 books will be published in the SRD, which you can find at:
http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=srd
So if you don't want to pay another $50-$90 (and I don't), you can download them to your laptop or print them yourself. I imagine some enterprising soul will compile a list of only the *changes*, too, which you will be able to print out and use if you want.
The 3.5 revision is not supposed to be a cosmetic revision as was the reprinting (you know, with the black border...) of the 2nd edition books. These books will have more content--320 pages each as opposed to 220-280 for the current ones. Also expected are a number of balancing and flavor changes and added material from some of the expansion books. Although not prefect, 3rd Edition was truly well playtested, and I have high expectations for 3.5.
Back on topic: What _would_ be nice is if WotC set up a "send us the proof of purchase for the book and we'll email you the data files" program. Because I don't expect they expect PCGen to be a huge revenue stream anyway, if enough people were to email them stating the case politely, they might well accept.
I see your point. The first two paragraphs do look kind of pro-Microsoft. On the other hand, the phrase "the bane of consumers" is right there, and the phrase "Critics counter that the technologies are part of an industry power-play" comes just two sentences later.
We could go back and forth this way all day, of course, but I wouldn't be too quick to scream at this article, especially since it's about all that can be hoped for.
I must have been entirely too used to reading articles on CNN, Salon, etc. which look entirely too much like press releases for Microsoft, stating only how whatever new toy will Save Families And Protect The Children, and not how it will impede freedom.
By contrast, this article mentions the negatives in, heck, pretty much every paragraph. It notes that Microsoft denies any freedom-limiting intent, but it also makes it very clear that a lot of people are really worried; the potential to limit freedom is certainly there.
I suppose it's too much for me to expect for one silly Reuters article to change the world, but it certainly gives me some hope.
The need for physical security is obvious. What's not so obvious is that the same people should be in charge of both electronic and physical security, since these seem like very different realms.
It seems fairly clear to me that the bottom-line security people shouldn't have both jobs. However, I'm still pondering whether the management could or should be combined since, as the article points out, both jobs are aspects of the same ideal: a secure company.
Re:The Constitution doesn't need amending
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but the 14th amendment states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Which basically says that states can't take away freedoms that Congress can't.
It seems to me that if you expect your quote to be very different than your competitors', you would do well to explain that a) you know this price difference exists and, most importantly, b) why it exists. Maybe you lower your costs by using open source software and pass that savings along to your client. But for all your client knows, you're using 8th graders for $5.25/hour and passing the savings along to your client--unless you tell him why your just-as-good solution is inexpensive.
Another suggestion: If you suspect your competitor is offering a more full-featured, or bloated, product, and that's why they're asking more money, give a list of additional features you could add and the development time and cost those would add to your bid. Your clients can add the numbers to get the higher price they want, and you might get lucky and impress them with your honesty.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you counting the Parrot announcement? I laughed out loud--that one was ridiculous.
Trade Wars, Land of Devastation, L.O.R.D... those were the days. Offering people something they can jump into with no prior social contacts--and a reason to keep coming back every day--I think, would still be a way to bring people in.
Even though modem use is no longer an issue, a time limit every day keeps people coming back day after day.
Computing which scripting language is best by character count? What a brilliant idea!
Sometime next week, I'll post an article definitively stating which is the best work of literature in the world. My criterion will be the one that has the most words.
As soon as I saw this topic my eyes lit up as I thought "EU2!" I was interested in history back in high school, but that faded to other priorities as I went through college. But playing EU2, with its historical events, leaders, and territories, really fired me up again--I ended up reading a bunch of library books about my favorite EU2 nation, Castile/Spain.
If the wheel was less than perfectly random, it is the casino that was cheating, not the patrons. So why are they the ones who have been detained?
...So this is Security by Hoping Readers Don't Read The Whole Page. Could be the next big thing!
Nothing to stop one from selling one's bottle cap collection, which *just* *happens* to have 150 caps collected from Pepsi in the Feb-Mar 2004 time period, though.
We suck at seeing blue because, of the three kinds of cones in the retina (most sensitive to red, green, and blue) light, we have far fewer of the blue kind than the other two. The two kinds of red/green color blindness do not impair visual acuity because the pigment from red cones is used in the green cones, or vice versa; so all the cones are still useful, but all respond to the same thing. There is a very rare form of color blindness in which (it is suspected) the blue cones have no pigment at all. Because there are so few blue cones, even though they are completely useless, vision is not harmed much.
You can read more here.
I don't think he really disparages the "nearlynet" (what an awful word coinage) so much as he realizes that the "permanet" (a little better) is an ideal. Who wouldn't want their cell phone to work in Antarctica? As it turns out, the obvious answer is: People who don't want to pay triple for that ability.
I would also mention that it's a lot easier, in general, to start with a cheap system and improve it than it is to start with a good system and cheapen it. Think of the Internet vs. the ISS.
I think it makes a lot of sense to have primarily positive reviews. Eighty kazillion books come out every week, and most of them I've never heard of. If someone writes a review of a book I've never heard of and tells me not to buy it--what have I gained? Is it really worth the trouble for a volunteer to write a review for that book? The only time I can think of that being worthwhile is if a widely-anticipated book or revision turned out to be a real dog. Say, if Programming Perl, 4th ed. was lousy because it was written by CowboyNeal instead of Larry Wall.
On the other hand, I appreciate having my attention called to a *good* book which I would otherwise have been unaware of, as positive reviews tend to do.
Methanol on an airplane is hardly anything to worry about. It's no more dangerous than ethanol, which of course the airline will happily let you drink as much of as you want as long as you keep paying. It burns, but so does ethanol and paper.
Explosion? Nah. It would be a very difficult task to get so much methanol vapor that an explosion would be much more than alarming pop--the same pop you could get by inflating a barf bag with your breath, twisting off the opening, and POPping it with your fist.
Actually, you don't need to pay twice. As with the basic 3E books, the 3.5 books will be published in the SRD, which you can find at:
http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=srd
So if you don't want to pay another $50-$90 (and I don't), you can download them to your laptop or print them yourself. I imagine some enterprising soul will compile a list of only the *changes*, too, which you will be able to print out and use if you want.
The 3.5 revision is not supposed to be a cosmetic revision as was the reprinting (you know, with the black border...) of the 2nd edition books. These books will have more content--320 pages each as opposed to 220-280 for the current ones. Also expected are a number of balancing and flavor changes and added material from some of the expansion books. Although not prefect, 3rd Edition was truly well playtested, and I have high expectations for 3.5.
Back on topic: What _would_ be nice is if WotC set up a "send us the proof of purchase for the book and we'll email you the data files" program. Because I don't expect they expect PCGen to be a huge revenue stream anyway, if enough people were to email them stating the case politely, they might well accept.
I see your point. The first two paragraphs do look kind of pro-Microsoft. On the other hand, the phrase "the bane of consumers" is right there, and the phrase "Critics counter that the technologies are part of an industry power-play" comes just two sentences later.
We could go back and forth this way all day, of course, but I wouldn't be too quick to scream at this article, especially since it's about all that can be hoped for.
I must have been entirely too used to reading articles on CNN, Salon, etc. which look entirely too much like press releases for Microsoft, stating only how whatever new toy will Save Families And Protect The Children, and not how it will impede freedom.
By contrast, this article mentions the negatives in, heck, pretty much every paragraph. It notes that Microsoft denies any freedom-limiting intent, but it also makes it very clear that a lot of people are really worried; the potential to limit freedom is certainly there.
I suppose it's too much for me to expect for one silly Reuters article to change the world, but it certainly gives me some hope.
The need for physical security is obvious. What's not so obvious is that the same people should be in charge of both electronic and physical security, since these seem like very different realms. It seems fairly clear to me that the bottom-line security people shouldn't have both jobs. However, I'm still pondering whether the management could or should be combined since, as the article points out, both jobs are aspects of the same ideal: a secure company.
Ah, but the 14th amendment states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Which basically says that states can't take away freedoms that Congress can't.
It seems to me that if you expect your quote to be very different than your competitors', you would do well to explain that a) you know this price difference exists and, most importantly, b) why it exists. Maybe you lower your costs by using open source software and pass that savings along to your client. But for all your client knows, you're using 8th graders for $5.25/hour and passing the savings along to your client--unless you tell him why your just-as-good solution is inexpensive.
Another suggestion: If you suspect your competitor is offering a more full-featured, or bloated, product, and that's why they're asking more money, give a list of additional features you could add and the development time and cost those would add to your bid. Your clients can add the numbers to get the higher price they want, and you might get lucky and impress them with your honesty.