I think it's to differentiate from Earth days easily in case there'd be any ambiguity or reason for confusion without having to type "Martian day" until their fingers bleed.
Yes, it definitely can. One theory significant for us at least is that the mexican gulf current may slow down due to general warming, and that would give us almost arctic climate over here.
Huh? It would only be unthinkable if they sold these for like $100. What's unthinkable when they purchase ridiculously expensive Blu-ray drives and reuse their lasers in ridiculously expensive products? Is the weird and "unthinkable" part that the lasers can at all be disassembled, or what, exactly?
Re:Google and Wikipedia = sum of human knowledge
on
Google Earth In 4D
·
· Score: 1
Umm... How does good and plentiful access to human knowledge and culture relate to an Orwellian vision?:-S
That looks more like a Firebird vs Jet comparison, not a Firebird vs Access.
Access for example also supports building reports, and I wonder how Firebird works in that area? If it's "just" a DBMS, is there any good way of adding reports in an as integrated way as with Access and have this report tool be able to generate reports filled with data (preferrably possibly backed by scripting and/or a WYSIWYG layout tool) if another application calls it? Access can do all of this anyway, and a big reason we're using it right now, and definitely not its poor database support. We know there are better free alternatives for this.
I guess it disappears if moderators remove them for being inaccurate. Maybe it's some sort of GNAA-ish troll organization having fun again, because I assume you need quite a few people agreeing on a tag for it to appear.
I see Virtual Earth as an application that excels in a select few areas, but in general has much less to offer.
For example, it has nifty texture mapped buildings for a number of places, but what about the majority? Conversely, Google Earth covers a large part of Earth in quite good detail, but Virtual Earth not even my capital city. Additionally, GE has a large community behind it now, and the layer features provides an extensibility that could be compared to the extensions in Firefox.
He may be considering hate speech laws, but then, on the other hand, is he considering free speech zones in the US, and so on? I'm hesitant to call freedoms more limited in countries like Germany for this reason, especially with the actions GWB has taken in the US lately.
Yes, it's considered a "bad thing" for good reasons (allowing original research would introduce a heck of a lot of weirdness and has to be prevented), but it's not really vandalism as in "intentionally attacking articles and introducing inaccuracies" or whatever a normal definition would be. I wonder if the author even knew of Wikipedia's stance on original research as newcomers to Wikipedia can miss out on some things. It's pretty hard to find and read up on all documentation that's available scattered around it.
What most are getting hung up on is the long duration for which this article existed. However, "the better part of a year" is about as much as long as a revision for a regular paper encyclopedia. I agree this is an unusually notable case as it was an article marked as Good Article with all original research, but one also have to keep in mind the timescale of fixing more or less notable problems in competing encyclopedias.
I never liked how so freaking many website do more or less subtle mirrors of Wikipedia. Not for licensing reasons -- they have full permissions to do this if obeying the GFDL -- but because Wikipedia is often freaking unverified information. You'd think about.com and the likes would know better!
This is just the ancient problem of people blindly trusting anything they're told in mails.
The problem isn't the authority Wikipedia has received, that's just a sub-problem, the real problem is the authority e-mails have got, to the point of users trusting them enough to download random things even if they don't know the person sending them.
Sounds like the wonderful spiral of economy to me, with it requiring an ever increasing profit.
Cutting journalist costs sounds like the logical next step to me...
I guess it's the newspaper variant of reality shows. Have regular people star in your TV shows for minimal payment (often just the winner get anything to speak of) in comparison to the income from very frequent advertising. The next step from having celebrities star in various TV entertainment -- just let regular people do who're often more than pleased with the attention alone. And if e.g TV series are costly, we're nowadays seeing TV companies more and more eager to do quick aborts of them, sometimes barely even letting a large audience form around them. The hunt for profit is pretty sad in how it affects us and I fear it'll only go downhill from here...
Let's say I pay a music tax -- how do the ISP in collaboration with the owner of the intellectual property then figure out who should get the money for something I downloaded? Assuming an "popularity/assumption model" is one of their ideas -- I do not want the income be split according to the popularity of artists, as that could give Madonna money for downloading from a far less common artist. And how is the fee adjusted to how much copyrighted music I'd download? Because it is, right, otherwise it's completely unfair.
The Neverwinter Nights 2 Toolset was redone in.NET, but I checked the various components, and it at least used these: - RAD Game Tools' Bink library - RAD Game Tools' Granny library - RAD Game Tools' Miles Sound System - Crownwood Software's DotNetMagic 2005 - D. Turner, R. Wilhelm, W. Lemberg -- FreeType font rasterizer - Glacial Components Software's GlacialTreeList - Mike Krueger's (of ICSharpCode) SharpZLib library - Divelements Limited's SandBar - Various libraries done by Sano - Various libraries done by Quantum Whale - Davide Icardi's (of DevAge.com) Source / SourceGrid libraries - Matthew Hall's XPExplorerBar - Zlib
These were third party work used in the toolset application, and could be more as well (just checked standalone libraries, not any statically linked stuff).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe next time Microsoft will try harder by using a grammatically correct slogan as opposed to "welcome to the social".
Why doesn't Apple themselves fight harder against this?
It seems they'd have decent grounds with all these OEM deals.
Or am I missing something and they actually are, or have been but have lost such a case?
It just seems without these deals, Apple would have quite a bit to win.
Not only because it's broader and probably more respected, but also because the game industry market can be a quite volatile one.
I think it's to differentiate from Earth days easily in case there'd be any ambiguity or reason for confusion without having to type "Martian day" until their fingers bleed.
The closest a geek gets to a shower is when watching a meteor shower. :-)
Global warming causes colder weather?
Yes, it definitely can. One theory significant for us at least is that the mexican gulf current may slow down due to general warming, and that would give us almost arctic climate over here.
Huh? It would only be unthinkable if they sold these for like $100. What's unthinkable when they purchase ridiculously expensive Blu-ray drives and reuse their lasers in ridiculously expensive products? Is the weird and "unthinkable" part that the lasers can at all be disassembled, or what, exactly?
Umm... How does good and plentiful access to human knowledge and culture relate to an Orwellian vision? :-S
That looks more like a Firebird vs Jet comparison, not a Firebird vs Access.
Access for example also supports building reports, and I wonder how Firebird works in that area? If it's "just" a DBMS, is there any good way of adding reports in an as integrated way as with Access and have this report tool be able to generate reports filled with data (preferrably possibly backed by scripting and/or a WYSIWYG layout tool) if another application calls it? Access can do all of this anyway, and a big reason we're using it right now, and definitely not its poor database support. We know there are better free alternatives for this.
I guess it disappears if moderators remove them for being inaccurate. Maybe it's some sort of GNAA-ish troll organization having fun again, because I assume you need quite a few people agreeing on a tag for it to appear.
What the heck, including this article, there's now at least 18 of 23 articles on the front page marked as itsatrap. :-/
Hehe, well, according to some reports here and elsewhere, it barely even runs on IE. ;-)
I see Virtual Earth as an application that excels in a select few areas, but in general has much less to offer.
For example, it has nifty texture mapped buildings for a number of places, but what about the majority? Conversely, Google Earth covers a large part of Earth in quite good detail, but Virtual Earth not even my capital city. Additionally, GE has a large community behind it now, and the layer features provides an extensibility that could be compared to the extensions in Firefox.
He may be considering hate speech laws, but then, on the other hand, is he considering free speech zones in the US, and so on? I'm hesitant to call freedoms more limited in countries like Germany for this reason, especially with the actions GWB has taken in the US lately.
Just to get the proportions right; how much of USA's budget is spent on military funding vs NASA?
Yes, it's considered a "bad thing" for good reasons (allowing original research would introduce a heck of a lot of weirdness and has to be prevented), but it's not really vandalism as in "intentionally attacking articles and introducing inaccuracies" or whatever a normal definition would be. I wonder if the author even knew of Wikipedia's stance on original research as newcomers to Wikipedia can miss out on some things. It's pretty hard to find and read up on all documentation that's available scattered around it.
What most are getting hung up on is the long duration for which this article existed. However, "the better part of a year" is about as much as long as a revision for a regular paper encyclopedia. I agree this is an unusually notable case as it was an article marked as Good Article with all original research, but one also have to keep in mind the timescale of fixing more or less notable problems in competing encyclopedias.
I wonder if all the subtle mirrors will be fixed...
I never liked how so freaking many website do more or less subtle mirrors of Wikipedia. Not for licensing reasons -- they have full permissions to do this if obeying the GFDL -- but because Wikipedia is often freaking unverified information. You'd think about.com and the likes would know better!
The funny part is that both that version of the MS Search and the one before were claimed to be Google killers. ;-)
Hmm, I can imagine some way of hiding goatse guys with this. :-/
This is just the ancient problem of people blindly trusting anything they're told in mails.
The problem isn't the authority Wikipedia has received, that's just a sub-problem, the real problem is the authority e-mails have got, to the point of users trusting them enough to download random things even if they don't know the person sending them.
Sounds like the wonderful spiral of economy to me, with it requiring an ever increasing profit.
Cutting journalist costs sounds like the logical next step to me...
I guess it's the newspaper variant of reality shows. Have regular people star in your TV shows for minimal payment (often just the winner get anything to speak of) in comparison to the income from very frequent advertising. The next step from having celebrities star in various TV entertainment -- just let regular people do who're often more than pleased with the attention alone. And if e.g TV series are costly, we're nowadays seeing TV companies more and more eager to do quick aborts of them, sometimes barely even letting a large audience form around them. The hunt for profit is pretty sad in how it affects us and I fear it'll only go downhill from here...
Let's say I pay a music tax -- how do the ISP in collaboration with the owner of the intellectual property then figure out who should get the money for something I downloaded? Assuming an "popularity/assumption model" is one of their ideas -- I do not want the income be split according to the popularity of artists, as that could give Madonna money for downloading from a far less common artist. And how is the fee adjusted to how much copyrighted music I'd download? Because it is, right, otherwise it's completely unfair.
The Neverwinter Nights 2 Toolset was redone in .NET, but I checked the various components, and it at least used these:
- RAD Game Tools' Bink library
- RAD Game Tools' Granny library
- RAD Game Tools' Miles Sound System
- Crownwood Software's DotNetMagic 2005
- D. Turner, R. Wilhelm, W. Lemberg -- FreeType font rasterizer
- Glacial Components Software's GlacialTreeList
- Mike Krueger's (of ICSharpCode) SharpZLib library
- Divelements Limited's SandBar
- Various libraries done by Sano
- Various libraries done by Quantum Whale
- Davide Icardi's (of DevAge.com) Source / SourceGrid libraries
- Matthew Hall's XPExplorerBar
- Zlib
These were third party work used in the toolset application, and could be more as well (just checked standalone libraries, not any statically linked stuff).
The problem with this argument is however that in the past, according to this article, fish species have indeed been made extinct.