The question is absurd because it has little practical significance. About the only real situation I can imagine is if you have two vehicles which you drive equal distances every month, and are deciding which to upgrade. One gets 10 MPG, the other 33 MPG, and the replacements you're considering get 20 MPG and 50 MPG, respectively, AND the cost of these replacements is about the same. Very, very contrived.
Second-hand sales compete with first-hand ones. Nintendo may later release said games on Virtual Console, or release sequels. If someone can get the earlier one for cheap used, he may not care to buy the new expensive sequel new.
I don't think it's a broken window fallacy, because they aren't suggesting that we break anything. I think the idea is that they invested money in creating these things, but people didn't buy them, so they won't be able to invest as much in creating future products. If anything, they're arguing for a centrally-planned economy, where the big boys decide what we should be buying, create it, then demand that we buy it or else.
Let patent owners state a value for their IP. Let them be taxed at a certain percent, say 1% per year. [...] I claim this idea as my own. I had it while taking a shower about eight years ago. Please make use of it.
Oh, we will; we will. What value does this have? Sounds like it has a lot. If you pay back taxes on this unreported property you've had for eight years, within 90 days, there will be no interest.
Australian police arrest a subject for illegal surveillance for overhearing another party's conversation, and making a record of it in a carbon-based mass-storage device, while walking down the street.
Clarified that. Wait, I see someone walking down my street recording images of what he sees, in his own carbon-based mass-storage device. Calling 911 right now...
If it was M.A.D. and it wasn't no longer needed, we would probably already know. So, sleep easy tonight.
Or.... it happened, and this is some hellish afterlife that is exactly the same as before, even with the signal having been off and now turning back on.
If the wind was moving at 13.5 MPH during the test run for which there is a graph (point 6, red line), the vehicle was only moving 1.85 times faster than the wind (38 MPH), not 52 MPH as suggested by the summary and article. If the article wanted to use the largest-seeming number, it should have stated "The vehicle moves at 2.85 times the speed of the wind." This is correct; 2.85 * 13.5 = ~38, which matches the value on the graph.
If you think I'm wrong, just consider the example from the article (and I've got plenty more to back up my case, not just this): if 38 is 2.85 times greater than 13.5, what number is two times greater? 27, you say? OK, what number is one time greater? Oh, only 13.5? I thought we said it was greater? OK, what number is ZERO times greater? Surely it can't be zero, since we're just saying it's no greater, not that it's lesser. Basically, "X is N times greater than Y" means "X = N*Y + Y" (the plus is what greatER means). The article thinks it means "X = N*Y". What really does mean that is "X is N times Y".
They paid for a chance to win, and the machine told them they'd won. It's like buying a new shirt, finding a giant hole in it, and Banana Republic says "Sorry, the sewing machine was miscalibrated! No, we won't take it back. Maybe you can use it as leg warmers or something!"
The machine incorrectly told them they'd won; they hadn't (don't ask me what exactly constitutes winning, though, maybe something in another universe). I'm thinking their criterion is basically "If the machine said you won something, it's malfunctioning, because it's programmed to never say that."
If it's an ad, it sure does a bad job, because I'm like "registration key, oh, this isn't open-source or anything, just another proprietary OS. I might as well continue using Mac OS 9."
Learn quantum mechanics before you use a computer that operates on its principles. That's what your criticism amounts to. I contend that the style of writing is at a higher level and more important than fine points of grammar.
I sort of agree, but here "only" is referring to the fact that 1627.82 is less than 11000000.00. By adding that word, the reader is alerted to the fact that this is less than some earlier amount mentioned, adding redundant information aid in error detection.
What's wrong with just writing a dry summary? It's more pleasant to read and lets the facts of the situation speak for themselves:
"MaryAnn and Jim McMahon of Cripple Creek, Colorado were playing at the Wildwood Casino, Tuesday, and hit an $11 million jackpot on a slot machine. Before paying the winnings, the casino turned the machine over to the Colorado Gaming Division for inspection. After deciding that the win was due to a malfunction, the couple was paid only $1627.82 in winnings."
Reading this revised version doesn't make me sick and want to punch someone for trying to be witty and entertaining (that is, annoying and stupid).
They took a bunch of samples and tested for correlation across the lot. They found some correlations -- which is exactly what they would find if everything was totally random, assuming you ran enough different comparisons.
You, sir, are clearly autistic. Correlations, whatever you're talking about, just listen to the experts. They know what's right. Oh, right, you can't, because you're autistic, have to think for yourself and not go along with the herd. Sorry, we're all going to visit a cliff, sounds fun. Wish you'd come with.
Argh, sorry, I blinked my eye and my computer interpreted that as a Submit request. Anyway, I don't see any downsides to this. Sure, it might sometimes trigger acci
The Google-specific program components are available only in machine-readable binary code, which makes it impossible to analyze the internal processing.
He went on to add, "and our binary-only DRM scheme is unbreakable, since we don't release the source code, mwahahaha!"
Slashdot Mirror
Fixed that for you.
At first I read that as BP causing these things, but then I realized they probably are (in the Gulf at least).
The question is absurd because it has little practical significance. About the only real situation I can imagine is if you have two vehicles which you drive equal distances every month, and are deciding which to upgrade. One gets 10 MPG, the other 33 MPG, and the replacements you're considering get 20 MPG and 50 MPG, respectively, AND the cost of these replacements is about the same. Very, very contrived.
Second-hand sales compete with first-hand ones. Nintendo may later release said games on Virtual Console, or release sequels. If someone can get the earlier one for cheap used, he may not care to buy the new expensive sequel new.
I don't think it's a broken window fallacy, because they aren't suggesting that we break anything. I think the idea is that they invested money in creating these things, but people didn't buy them, so they won't be able to invest as much in creating future products. If anything, they're arguing for a centrally-planned economy, where the big boys decide what we should be buying, create it, then demand that we buy it or else.
irony
Honestly, I also hope the US. I mean, it's about time the US, don't you think?
Oh, we will; we will. What value does this have? Sounds like it has a lot. If you pay back taxes on this unreported property you've had for eight years, within 90 days, there will be no interest.
- The IRS
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a... hey, where were you going? I was going to help you make sense of things here.
I sure am. Next time I vote, I'll write in "Third Party". Not sure who this is, but they sound good.
But the university is educating students about the world out there, also full of control-freaks who don't want you thinking for yourself.
Clarified that. Wait, I see someone walking down my street recording images of what he sees, in his own carbon-based mass-storage device. Calling 911 right now...
Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well
Or.... it happened, and this is some hellish afterlife that is exactly the same as before, even with the signal having been off and now turning back on.
If you think I'm wrong, just consider the example from the article (and I've got plenty more to back up my case, not just this): if 38 is 2.85 times greater than 13.5, what number is two times greater? 27, you say? OK, what number is one time greater? Oh, only 13.5? I thought we said it was greater? OK, what number is ZERO times greater? Surely it can't be zero, since we're just saying it's no greater, not that it's lesser. Basically, "X is N times greater than Y" means "X = N*Y + Y" (the plus is what greatER means). The article thinks it means "X = N*Y". What really does mean that is "X is N times Y".
Care to share some URLs? I'm drawing a blank on what the hell to search for. Your description left me wanting to read about these events.
The machine incorrectly told them they'd won; they hadn't (don't ask me what exactly constitutes winning, though, maybe something in another universe). I'm thinking their criterion is basically "If the machine said you won something, it's malfunctioning, because it's programmed to never say that."
If it's an ad, it sure does a bad job, because I'm like "registration key, oh, this isn't open-source or anything, just another proprietary OS. I might as well continue using Mac OS 9."
Learn quantum mechanics before you use a computer that operates on its principles. That's what your criticism amounts to. I contend that the style of writing is at a higher level and more important than fine points of grammar.
I sort of agree, but here "only" is referring to the fact that 1627.82 is less than 11000000.00. By adding that word, the reader is alerted to the fact that this is less than some earlier amount mentioned, adding redundant information aid in error detection.
What's wrong with just writing a dry summary? It's more pleasant to read and lets the facts of the situation speak for themselves:
"MaryAnn and Jim McMahon of Cripple Creek, Colorado were playing at the Wildwood Casino, Tuesday, and hit an $11 million jackpot on a slot machine. Before paying the winnings, the casino turned the machine over to the Colorado Gaming Division for inspection. After deciding that the win was due to a malfunction, the couple was paid only $1627.82 in winnings."
Reading this revised version doesn't make me sick and want to punch someone for trying to be witty and entertaining (that is, annoying and stupid).
You, sir, are clearly autistic. Correlations, whatever you're talking about, just listen to the experts. They know what's right. Oh, right, you can't, because you're autistic, have to think for yourself and not go along with the herd. Sorry, we're all going to visit a cliff, sounds fun. Wish you'd come with.
Argh, sorry, I blinked my eye and my computer interpreted that as a Submit request. Anyway, I don't see any downsides to this. Sure, it might sometimes trigger acci
I think this is a great idea. I don't see any down
He went on to add, "and our binary-only DRM scheme is unbreakable, since we don't release the source code, mwahahaha!"