For example even in my home country (supposedly metric Australia -- guaruntee I've travelled more than you by the way) That's ok, I guarantee my dick's bigger than yours.
beer is in pints (and pots and midis) You may ask for a pint but you are given 475mls, and there is nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing magical about the size of a pint. Half a litre would do as well.
cooking uses teaspoons and tablespoons Since when have teaspoons and tablespoons have anything to do with imperial measure?
Just because Europe thinks that we should all use their arbitrary system "For the sake of uniformity" doesn't mean that it's not also an "assault on the brave USA." Of course your precious Imperial System is also an arbitrary system invented in Europe. It's not like the US ever described itself as an empire is it?
HD-DVD is FAR cheaper both in purchasing and manufacturing.
So has it been for many technologies. Cheaper wins over Better if Cheaper is "good enough.":
IDE vs SCSI x86 vs RISC Ethernet vs token ring
IDE and SCSI happily co-exist and IDE has adopted most of the things that made SCSI better anyway.
CISC (which is what you meant, I'm sure) and RISC have effectively merged - modern x86 CPUs are very RISC-like in every way but the instruction set.
And token ring was terrible compared to ethernet so the better technology certainly won there.
But there is no way to do that. Of course there is. You can plant trees. You can sequester CO2 underground. You can genetically engineer fast growing CO2 loving
algae and release them into the oceans. Some of these may not be wise, but they are certainly options.
The first thing I thought when I saw those charts was 'correlation doesn't equal causation'. But we have correlation and a proven mechanism and that is pretty convincing. Do not forget that you can make the "correlation doesn't equal causation" argument about everything that is causally related as well as everything that is only correlated.
And where, exactly, in the article, did they say they couldn't provide such documentation? In fact, I thought the article said that, at least according to Paypal's records, the account was listed as not-for-profit.
That didn't magically happen.
Second paragraph, first (really long) sentence:
"...they set up the initial Paypal account as a "charitable organization" account. (We do not know why they did this. We did not ask them to.)"
So the article doesn't say whether or not Paypal can provide documentation that the client asked for that account type, but they categorically deny that they did.
But, this is slashdot, lets just take the smallest amount of biased information and extrapolate that any corporate entity is Satan. Yup, this is Slashdot, where people make authoritive statements about articles they apparently haven't read.
I sure as hell wouldn't take his advice on game design though. He repeats the same tired formulas over and over. DOOM was cool in the 90's, but these days you gotta be a bit more creative. But how much say does he have in the game design? I'm sure he has some say, but his chief responsibility is the engine, not the game.
So would it be true to say that the purpose of copyright is to mimic depreciation in real-world goods? No. The purpose of copyright is to provide the greatest benefit to the comunity by providing an incentive to create in the form of an artificial monopoly for a limited duration.
They have every right to withhold the money until they prove it is an error. The onus is on Paypal to prove that the client requested that account type. If they can't point to documentation originating from the client or signed by the client to that effect then they are in the wrong.
They wouldn't be doing it this way if it didn't make them more money.
I doubt they know if it makes them money or not. And the fact that not all companies behave badly is a good indication that opinion is divided. I do know that customers are far more likely to remember (and spread) a bad experience than a good one.
It's just that when you're cancelling the service, chances are you're not interested in coming back. And even if you against the odds do, you're still a fickle customer, who have cost them extra work. Getting rid of you as painlessly as possible for them when you first cancel must be the first priority. I think their first priority should always be giving the best customer service possible, even when that customer is leaving.
I think where companies fall down is that they don't realise how much damage an unhappy ex-customer can do. I had Amercian Express jerk me around over cancelling a card a couple of years ago and I've probably told 10 or more different people about that experience. Not only have they lost my business forever, but they may well have lost other clients as well. I can hardly imagine how much damage a article like this one has done to those companies who were singled out for particularly bad practices.
I don't expect companies to be quick to adopt Vista. A lot of corporate systems I come in contact with are still using Windows 2000. I expect most upgrades to Vista to happen only when support for XP is terminated.
Actually, I'd be surprised if it was only 20%. You might be right in terms of consumer sales, but to reach that overall Apple will need more corporate penetration that they currently have. I don't see how they are going to get that in the short term - companies are slow to change.
No, but you should condemn the government for having the ability to wiretap your calls, even if they don't exercise it. Why should I? Wiretapping is a valid investigative technique that has been justly used in the past (particularly against organised crime). Provided the government doesn't abuse that ability I don't see anything wrong with them having that ability.
Yes...there was. When the Google marketing team used the AdWords network, they were technically unable to abuse the system. That's
why they used the network in the first place--to ensure the trust of users and advertisers. You don't have to take my word for it; take Google's. Where is the technical restriction? They claim they use the same tools and system as everyone else, but where is the proof? How exactly is their claim that they don't abuse AdWords proof that they can't? Google have access to the code, of course they can abuse it. There is no technical restriction - only a stated policy. The only thing stopping Google from doing whatever they like with the pages they serve is Google themselves. Thus you can only judge them on what they actually do, not what they could do.
I've addressed your other points already once: the tips are deliberately difficult to distinguish from search results due to their placement, and therefore exploitative You've made this claim, but how are you supporting it? The tips are clearly labelled as such, and they clearly identify a Google product. Anyone who cares should be able to easy see the difference. They are certainly easier to distinguish than the sponsored links. And you've provided no evidence that their placement or style is deliberately designed to confuse, let alone shown that they are in any way exploitive.
What do you care anyway? Make up your own mind, and let other readers make up theirs based on the facts. Frankly, I just want one of you people to explain to me why you're getting so bent out of shape about this. Are you really so out of touch that you think this is some sort of major infraction of consumer rights? And are you actually claiming that Blake Ross' diatribe is letting other readers make up their own minds?
Google's tips are not subject to the same policies as AdWords ads, so irrespective of whether Kodak blocks ads from using its trademark, a tip could do it anyways. That wasn't the case when Google was using its own network. Rubbish. The exact same mechanism that stops Google using competitor's names in AdWords ads also prevents them using competitor's names in tips. That mechanism is, of course, the legal protection afforded to trademarks.
Who cares what they could do? Should I condemn you because you could go and murder someone? Anyway, what exactly has changed in the last three weeks? There was no technical reason they couldn't have abused the system back then. Since they aren't abusing the system now (in the way you said - "Kodak sucks, etc"), what exactly is your point?
Google is putting links to some of their own products before the search results, without clearly differentiating them from the search results. They are clearly differentiating them. They don't look anything like a search result.
They're not (as far as anyone can show) changing search results and the link is quite obviously different from the search results. Actually, they are. Google censors sites which don't follow some nebulous sets of rules, and sites which they consider spam. That's well known and they reserve an enormous amount of discretion. They can of course do what they want, but it's not fully transparent (or trustworthy). Allow me to clarify: no one has shown that they have changed search results in their own favour, and no one has demonstrated systematic bias in favour of their advertisers or business partners. A bunch of people have had trouble when they've been categorised (accurately or not) as attempting to "game" the system. That is not bias.
As far as those extra product placement links are concerned, ask yourself why they exist if the top search position isn't particularly valuable. Who said the top position wasn't valuable? But the point is, why shouldn't Google promote it's own products in this way? And don't give me some crap about it being dishonest or unfair or misleading or whatever, because it isn't. Do you take the same position over tv stations' self advertising?
to claim it isn't intentionally biasing the _search_results_display_ (which to a user is pretty much the same thing as the results) is wrong. The tips don't look anything like a search results. They are far more different than the sponsored links, which you apparently have no problem with. To claim including those tips are "biasing the search results display" is ridiculous.
The issue is that Google is biased, and people who use Google should know that when they do searches, so they aren't being duped. When searching for something that might match a Google product, Google are putting in a link to that product, essentially saying "we think you're searching for..., have you considered Google...". How is that biased? They're not (as far as anyone can show) changing search results and the link is quite obviously different from the search results. This is not newsworthy because 99% of people aren't going to have an issue with Google's behaviour. I'd bet that it wouldn't even have been posted were it not for the tenuous connection to Firefox.
True. However 114 isn't really stable... the superactinde branch is supposed to represent heavy elements that are predicted to be stable on the order of years, or the red peak of the island (even if it looks like the two diagram don't align up right). Good observation though, and honestly I'm not 100% confident about this topic; I only have a BS in chem. Have you got any references? Most stuff I've seen seems to consider ununquadium-298 (Z=114, N=184) the most likey candidate for stability. See, for example, this pbs segment, or this. Though I know 126 is considered to be a magic number so Z=126, N=184 should also be very stable.
They say that last year we didn't know that... No, they said that they didn't know those things last year. They made no comment on what was or wasn't known by you, me, or the rest of the human race.
The predicted region of heavy elements that might be stable are labeled superlactindes and come off as a third arm. The predicted region of stability is centred on element 114 (sometimes known as Eka-lead), which is on the opposide side of the diagram to the superactinde branch.
Slashdot Mirror
So has it been for many technologies. Cheaper wins over Better if Cheaper is "good enough.":
IDE vs SCSI
IDE and SCSI happily co-exist and IDE has adopted most of the things that made SCSI better anyway.x86 vs RISC
Ethernet vs token ring
CISC (which is what you meant, I'm sure) and RISC have effectively merged - modern x86 CPUs are very RISC-like in every way but the instruction set.
And token ring was terrible compared to ethernet so the better technology certainly won there.
You forgot to mention that only about 2% of NSW has had adequate rainfall lately - the rest is either in drought or close to it.
That didn't magically happen.
Second paragraph, first (really long) sentence:"...they set up the initial Paypal account as a "charitable organization" account. (We do not know why they did this. We did not ask them to.)"
So the article doesn't say whether or not Paypal can provide documentation that the client asked for that account type, but they categorically deny that they did.
But, this is slashdot, lets just take the smallest amount of biased information and extrapolate that any corporate entity is Satan. Yup, this is Slashdot, where people make authoritive statements about articles they apparently haven't read.I don't expect companies to be quick to adopt Vista. A lot of corporate systems I come in contact with are still using Windows 2000. I expect most upgrades to Vista to happen only when support for XP is terminated.
Who cares what they could do? Should I condemn you because you could go and murder someone? Anyway, what exactly has changed in the last three weeks? There was no technical reason they couldn't have abused the system back then. Since they aren't abusing the system now (in the way you said - "Kodak sucks, etc"), what exactly is your point?
But the point is that Google are not saying that Picasa is "Easier to use than Kodak", are they?
Hassium-270 has 108 protons and 162 neutrons.