(1) Knowing the cards of the other players is a small, but significant, advantage. Say you've got two hearts, and your three buddies have a heart each. Well, you're chance of getting another three hearts on the table are significantly affected. (Likewise, if they have none, it increases the chance you'll want to stay in and catch the flop.)
(2) Much more serious, though, is collusion in betting. You and your buddy can conspire to raise the pot *as much as you like*. In a fixed raise game, this is an enormous advantage. Another player cannot just "call" and see the next card, as there will always be a player still to call who can reraise.
Personally, though, I love bots. I'm happy to play them all day long. (So long as they're not colluding, of course...)
Terrific. What has the world come to. I am a non-executive Director of a number of small businesses (none of which has any outsourced operations). The executives of the company are charges with a simple aim: make money for shareholders. If the chief executive of one of my companies said "well, in the last quarter we increased our profits by employee 23%", but failed to mention the absolute level of profits. Well, he wouldn't keep his job very long.
We've looked at outsourcing things in the past. As a non exec, my role is simple: protect the interests of shareholders. I have a legal duty to them (something I don't have towards employees). Yet I've always voted and argued against outsourcing offshore. My reasons are:
(1) Customer service is a core competence. If you don't hear what your customers are saying directly, and if they aren't satisifed, you aren't going to be in business long. (It is far, far more expensive to gain a customer lost through bad service than to hire an intelligent, articulate and helpful helpdesk guy.)
(2) Cost savings are often illusory. So, we have 5 guys working helpdesk at £25,000 a year. And if we outsource to Company X in India, then we'll only pay £80,000 in total. But we'll also have to fly to India to check on stuff (costs: flights, hotels, time); we'll also find ourselves in a difficult to break contract (enforceable in a court in Bangalore, no thanks); and we'll miss out on potentially great hires that come through the help desk (if we get one a year, that's saved us £10,000 in recruiter's fees).
But. But. But, there is no "moving numbers to a different balance sheet" thing. That doesn't even make sense. A company will have a single consolidated balance sheet.
No. According to Wikipedia dumping is the act of a manufacturer in one country exporting a product to another country at what some perceive as an unreasonably low price. It might however be regarded as 'predatory pricing'.
But, as both AMD and Intel are highly profitable companies, it would be better described as good old fashioned competition. This isn't going to put AMD out of business; it isn't even going to push AMD into losses. But it might just mean cheaper processors for you and me.
The Euro was originally the ECU (or European currency unit) which was a basket of European currencies and dates all the way back to 1979. (It was initially just an internal accounting unit for the European commission.) When the Euro finally launched, it was decided that an exchange rate of One Euro = One ECU was the simplest way to go (not least because there was a lot of ECU denominated corporate and government debt in existence).
Don't forget, you don't have to put an expensive American policeman in front of the screen.
All over America, politicians are investigating ways to lower the cost via outsourcing. Bids have been recieved from Iran, North Korea and Cuba. Administration officials have praised globalisation; said one "it's terrific; we get greater security for our people, while simultaneously lowering our costs." Perot Systems, well known for liberal attitudes and support of employment in American, has agreed to administer the system.:-)
OK. Get yourself a Linux virtual dedicated server (I like the Xen stuff) in the US. Can cost as little as 10USD per month. Can also be used for other things.
Install Cygwin.
From Cygwin 'ssh -D 1080 xxx@server.ip.here'
Now, tell iTunes to use the proxy server at 127.0.0.1 port 1080.
If I wrote this about my "right" to run OS X on whatever hardware I liked, I'd be kicked to the ground, and then people would get "+5, insightfuls" for saying that Apple has the right to restrict how its software is run. (After all, you agreed to the EULA...)
Presumably the logic is simple: Apple restrics rights, fine; Microsoft, the MPAA or anyone else restricts right, treason!
Capitalism does one thing really well. It allocates scarce resources efficiently. As oil diminishes prices will rise and demand will fall. The market will clear. This isn't good news for consumers and those of us raised on $15 a barrel oil. It isn't good news if you own a gas guzzeling SUV. It isn't good news for unemployment.
But it isn't the end of the world. We will end up living in a more energy efficient world. We will end up using other forms of power (solar, nuclear, coal, gas, etc.) Humankind will not be wiped out. Democracy will not die.
You state that capitalism can't deal with this. I think this is the only thing capitalism does well. It will wean us off oil by making us pay increasing amounts per barrel. It will force us to make choices about how we spend our hard earned cash: on gas for my SUV, or on a bicycle.
What alternative do you propose? Panic, perhaps? Socialism? Neither has been particularly impressive. If you want to ease the transition you could raise gasoline taxes, forcing consumption down now. (I wouldn't be opposed to that.) But this is using capitalism, and using the mechanism of the price signal.
For an academic, this is a dangerously unthoughful piece. Or rather, while it is quite possible we have passed peak oil production, the understanding of economics in the piece are terribly naieve.
If oil production continues to decline (which it may well), then prices will rise. We'll see $100 oil. But, and this is the big but, if we see $100 oil then world oil demand will not rise 3%, it'll be down 5%. High oil prices mean less consumption of oil.
This happens in several ways: firstly, in areas like power generation, then oil become more expensive than (existing) competing technologies. Oil fired power stations cease to make sense relative to coal fired ones. (And it is no surprise that we are seeing an upsurge in interest in nuclear.)
Secondly, economic growth slows - especially in areas which are energy intensive. The price of a Ryanair, or Easyjey, or SouthWest Airlines plane ticket rises to reflect higher oil prices. Fewer people fly. Airlines mothball planes. Oil consumption falls.
Thirdly, we will see purchases (and usage) of cars change. In the 1970s, the average horsepower of a new American car more than halved. When people make the school run, they'll use a little car rather than their SUV. It's a fair bet too that we'll see hybrid sales rise and rise. (Similarly, we'll see the proportion of ethanol in diesel increase.)
Finally, rising oil prices make other energy sources economic. There is a wonderful piece from the IEA on the various costs of different power sources. Solar isn't cheap now. But if the oil price is $150 a barrel, it doesn't look so bad.
The Princeton professor poo-pooes oil sands, but if the oil price is more than $100, then there'll be an awful lot of energy produced from them. Similarly, we'll see coal to oil plants (again), and no doubt a second commercial gas hydrates "mine".
So: if we have passed Hubbert's peak, we'll see our energy consumption fall, and we'll see the proportion of energy production that is oil fall. This will not be painless. But nor will we return to the stone age. We may well see GDP growth drop to subnormal levels - perhaps even for a decade - but this is very different to total economic collapse.
Funny, I presume, because it should be "you're", as in "you are".
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
To be fair, it's a little more complicated than that.
For a start, the world does not end at San Diego and Rhode Island. There are those of us who live overseas, and where the law on EULAs is by no means clear.
Firstly, a EULA is - supposed to be - a contract. The licensor agrees to let you use their software so long as you abide by certain rules, i.e. the terms of the EULA. Yet a EULA is a pretty odd contract. Traditionally a contract requires "offer, acceptance, and consideration". Yet there is no consideration involved. The consideration happened when the purchaser entered into a legal agreement with the retailer to buy the product. So, in any normal sense (and at least outside of the US), a EULA is not a contract.
But bear with me a second. Let us assume that a EULA is a legally binding contract. Unfortunately, some people cannot enter into contracts. Children, for example, cannot sign their life away. If a child clicks "I Accept", then it binds them to the terms of the EULA not one bit. (That does not mean a child can run off hundreds of copies of World of Warcraft; that's not breach of contract, that's infringement of copyright.) So a child, or a minor, or anyone not legally able to sign contracts could happily hack away.
Similarly, there are issues - which the federal court fails to deal with - concerning sale rights. If I sell a computer with legally purchased software pre-installed, then the purchaser has not clicked on "I Agree". How can they be bound by the terms of the EULA?
This is a much more complex area than people commonly realise. But one thing remains certain: Apple does not have an absolue monopoly in determining what every legal purchaser of OS X can do with their copy.
In the UK we have The Sale of Goods Act, which states that goods must have "fitness for purpose" - i.e. that they can run on your projector, or whatever. If goods do not have this, then you can demand your money back. The store has no right to only allow swaps or credit notes; you can demand your money back.
(You might also be able to get them on the "of merchantable quality" - if it doesn't play, it certainly isn't of merchantable quality...")
The other nice thing about this is that the retailers end up having the fight with the MPAA: if enough people keep bringing back the movies, they'll say something like 'sort it out, or we drop your products with this "feature"'
[This is an OT rant, feel free to mod down. Really, if you're doing your jobs as a mod correctly, you should just move on to the "Off Topic" thingy and do that click thing. But please don't use the over-rated mod. That one really sucks. This is incredibly, I'm getting off topic in the header to my off topic rant. Where was I?]
[rant]
"I'm anti-stock market"
What exactly does this mean? Do you mean people should not be allowed to own shares in businesses? That would be a pretty extreme position. So, I'll assume you don't mean that. Otherwise you'd probably want to say "I'm a real hard line Marxist."
OK: perhaps it means "I oppose the voluntary transfer of ownership stakes in businesses". But that is equally absurd. No-one would ever be able to see a business, or merge with another company. And if a business owner needed a life saving operation, she wouldn't be able to sell her company.
Right: what are we going for then. "I'm opposed to people freeling transfering their stakes in businesses in a regulated environment." Ummmm. No, still not getting it. Unless you're such a free market libertarian, and you're opposed to the concept of regulation.
So, what exactly does "I'm anti-stock market" mean? It's an absurd, ridiculous statement. At least say something meaningful like "I high-tech companies have a tendancy to be over-priced in the stock market. Investors tend to get terribly excited about growth and over-rate competitive advantage. To contextualise, Google would have to grow 50% a year for the next 5 years - no mean feat! - to possibly justify a valuation of 80 times next years' earnings." Now, I have no idea if the last sentance is correct (or even more than superficially meaningful), but it's a damn sight smarter than "I'm anti-stock market".
I just ran Vista on VMWare to see if this is the case. And it is and it isn't. It causes the WMF viewer to fall over on my build (5270), but it doesn't seem to infect anything. Certainly, my machine is not full of spyware (yet).
Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
That's not quite the same thing, is it? Did you, per chance, think you could just slip through a random definition (blatantly made up); throw a few (admittedly largely well deserved) insults, and get some instant "Karma".
Well, I guess you succeeded in getting the "Karma".
Sometimes you have to wonder why any decent attractive woman in her right mind would ever create a profile on one of those things.
I am not a Match.com employee. In fact, I know nothing about the company.
But two and a half years ago, I met a girl on it. We chatted, dated, and now are engaged to be married. She is geeky enough to design web-sites and have her own blog. Yet she is also intelligent, funny, and - dare I say it - drop dead gorgeous.
There is a very efficient way to secure your Linux box from the average script kiddy. It's simple and only takes about 5 seconds.
chmod 500/usr/bin/wget
Congratulations: you've stopped practically every script kiddy. (Every exploit I've ever seen has used wget to pull down a "root kit". So deny wget to every user but root. If you want to be clever, you can allow sudo use of wget, but don't feel obliged.)
Of course, this isn't real security. But if I'm running poorly debugged PHP apps on my webserver (you know who you are), then it's a must if I'm to stop my machine getting comprimised.
Oh yes: and learn how chroot works. It'll save you a great many headaches:-)
It's a nice theory; but if it's true, why was the European release delayed? Surely if they were having trouble selling all the PSPs they were making, they wouldn't have postponed selling to the Brits and the French...
Also: use NPD numbers with care. They (and they admit this) only cover a minority of retail in the US. Their sales numbers do not include Amazon.com, for example. In addition Sony management has been telling investors they are to ramp PSP production to 1.5m units a month: again, not something they would be planning with 5m unsold units
My guess is that Sony's probably sitting on a little more PSP inventory than they would like, but not the 5m units you're claiming.
This is a really terrific idea, as it allows for the wiki ideal to continue, while at the same time reducing the possibility of defacement, errors slipping in.
You could allow articles to move from unstable to stable, allowing stuff to move when it has been moderated by two people with the wikipedia equivilent of good karma (100 accepted changes, or something like that). You could even be relatively smart about this, pushing moderation of pages in the physics area to people who edited other physics pages. (Although never to people who have produced significant edits on the same page, as this could perpetuate the problem of new information not been reflected in pages.)
Slashdot Mirror
Two things:
(1) Knowing the cards of the other players is a small, but significant, advantage. Say you've got two hearts, and your three buddies have a heart each. Well, you're chance of getting another three hearts on the table are significantly affected. (Likewise, if they have none, it increases the chance you'll want to stay in and catch the flop.)
(2) Much more serious, though, is collusion in betting. You and your buddy can conspire to raise the pot *as much as you like*. In a fixed raise game, this is an enormous advantage. Another player cannot just "call" and see the next card, as there will always be a player still to call who can reraise.
Personally, though, I love bots. I'm happy to play them all day long. (So long as they're not colluding, of course...)
Cheers,
Robert
This scores +5, Interesting...
Terrific. What has the world come to. I am a non-executive Director of a number of small businesses (none of which has any outsourced operations). The executives of the company are charges with a simple aim: make money for shareholders. If the chief executive of one of my companies said "well, in the last quarter we increased our profits by employee 23%", but failed to mention the absolute level of profits. Well, he wouldn't keep his job very long.
We've looked at outsourcing things in the past. As a non exec, my role is simple: protect the interests of shareholders. I have a legal duty to them (something I don't have towards employees). Yet I've always voted and argued against outsourcing offshore. My reasons are:
(1) Customer service is a core competence. If you don't hear what your customers are saying directly, and if they aren't satisifed, you aren't going to be in business long. (It is far, far more expensive to gain a customer lost through bad service than to hire an intelligent, articulate and helpful helpdesk guy.)
(2) Cost savings are often illusory. So, we have 5 guys working helpdesk at £25,000 a year. And if we outsource to Company X in India, then we'll only pay £80,000 in total. But we'll also have to fly to India to check on stuff (costs: flights, hotels, time); we'll also find ourselves in a difficult to break contract (enforceable in a court in Bangalore, no thanks); and we'll miss out on potentially great hires that come through the help desk (if we get one a year, that's saved us £10,000 in recruiter's fees).
But. But. But, there is no "moving numbers to a different balance sheet" thing. That doesn't even make sense. A company will have a single consolidated balance sheet.
Nevermind...
Cheers,
Robert
Can AMD prove illegal dumping?
No. According to Wikipedia dumping is the act of a manufacturer in one country exporting a product to another country at what some perceive as an unreasonably low price. It might however be regarded as 'predatory pricing'.
But, as both AMD and Intel are highly profitable companies, it would be better described as good old fashioned competition. This isn't going to put AMD out of business; it isn't even going to push AMD into losses. But it might just mean cheaper processors for you and me.
drools...
Artificially specified value of the Euro? Not so.
The Euro was originally the ECU (or European currency unit) which was a basket of European currencies and dates all the way back to 1979. (It was initially just an internal accounting unit for the European commission.) When the Euro finally launched, it was decided that an exchange rate of One Euro = One ECU was the simplest way to go (not least because there was a lot of ECU denominated corporate and government debt in existence).
Cheers, Robert
Try doing what I do with Minix3: run it in VMWare, allocate it 4GB of RAM, and let VMWare do your virtual memory manegement.
(Yes, I know it's an ugly hack. But it means I don't worry about giving Bash 120mb, and cc some enormous number...)
Don't forget, you don't have to put an expensive American policeman in front of the screen.
:-)
All over America, politicians are investigating ways to lower the cost via outsourcing. Bids have been recieved from Iran, North Korea and Cuba. Administration officials have praised globalisation; said one "it's terrific; we get greater security for our people, while simultaneously lowering our costs." Perot Systems, well known for liberal attitudes and support of employment in American, has agreed to administer the system.
That's easy peasy to get round.
:-)
OK. Get yourself a Linux virtual dedicated server (I like the Xen stuff) in the US. Can cost as little as 10USD per month. Can also be used for other things.
Install Cygwin.
From Cygwin 'ssh -D 1080 xxx@server.ip.here'
Now, tell iTunes to use the proxy server at 127.0.0.1 port 1080.
Works for me
OK. I have one. The OQO has the following problems:
:-)
(1) It's heavy.
(2) It has a terrible keyboard.
(3) It's too small to do serious work on, and too large to carry anywhere comfortably.
I personally prefer the ultra small Sony UX1. I've put Debian on it, and - despite being rather old now - it's sweet
If I wrote this about my "right" to run OS X on whatever hardware I liked, I'd be kicked to the ground, and then people would get "+5, insightfuls" for saying that Apple has the right to restrict how its software is run. (After all, you agreed to the EULA...)
Presumably the logic is simple: Apple restrics rights, fine; Microsoft, the MPAA or anyone else restricts right, treason!
I don't think you get it.
Capitalism does one thing really well. It allocates scarce resources efficiently. As oil diminishes prices will rise and demand will fall. The market will clear. This isn't good news for consumers and those of us raised on $15 a barrel oil. It isn't good news if you own a gas guzzeling SUV. It isn't good news for unemployment.
But it isn't the end of the world. We will end up living in a more energy efficient world. We will end up using other forms of power (solar, nuclear, coal, gas, etc.) Humankind will not be wiped out. Democracy will not die.
You state that capitalism can't deal with this. I think this is the only thing capitalism does well. It will wean us off oil by making us pay increasing amounts per barrel. It will force us to make choices about how we spend our hard earned cash: on gas for my SUV, or on a bicycle.
What alternative do you propose? Panic, perhaps? Socialism? Neither has been particularly impressive. If you want to ease the transition you could raise gasoline taxes, forcing consumption down now. (I wouldn't be opposed to that.) But this is using capitalism, and using the mechanism of the price signal.
For an academic, this is a dangerously unthoughful piece. Or rather, while it is quite possible we have passed peak oil production, the understanding of economics in the piece are terribly naieve.
If oil production continues to decline (which it may well), then prices will rise. We'll see $100 oil. But, and this is the big but, if we see $100 oil then world oil demand will not rise 3%, it'll be down 5%. High oil prices mean less consumption of oil.
This happens in several ways: firstly, in areas like power generation, then oil become more expensive than (existing) competing technologies. Oil fired power stations cease to make sense relative to coal fired ones. (And it is no surprise that we are seeing an upsurge in interest in nuclear.)
Secondly, economic growth slows - especially in areas which are energy intensive. The price of a Ryanair, or Easyjey, or SouthWest Airlines plane ticket rises to reflect higher oil prices. Fewer people fly. Airlines mothball planes. Oil consumption falls.
Thirdly, we will see purchases (and usage) of cars change. In the 1970s, the average horsepower of a new American car more than halved. When people make the school run, they'll use a little car rather than their SUV. It's a fair bet too that we'll see hybrid sales rise and rise. (Similarly, we'll see the proportion of ethanol in diesel increase.)
Finally, rising oil prices make other energy sources economic. There is a wonderful piece from the IEA on the various costs of different power sources. Solar isn't cheap now. But if the oil price is $150 a barrel, it doesn't look so bad.
The Princeton professor poo-pooes oil sands, but if the oil price is more than $100, then there'll be an awful lot of energy produced from them. Similarly, we'll see coal to oil plants (again), and no doubt a second commercial gas hydrates "mine".
So: if we have passed Hubbert's peak, we'll see our energy consumption fall, and we'll see the proportion of energy production that is oil fall. This will not be painless. But nor will we return to the stone age. We may well see GDP growth drop to subnormal levels - perhaps even for a decade - but this is very different to total economic collapse.
Funny, I presume, because it should be "you're", as in "you are".
To be fair, it's a little more complicated than that.
For a start, the world does not end at San Diego and Rhode Island. There are those of us who live overseas, and where the law on EULAs is by no means clear.
Firstly, a EULA is - supposed to be - a contract. The licensor agrees to let you use their software so long as you abide by certain rules, i.e. the terms of the EULA. Yet a EULA is a pretty odd contract. Traditionally a contract requires "offer, acceptance, and consideration". Yet there is no consideration involved. The consideration happened when the purchaser entered into a legal agreement with the retailer to buy the product. So, in any normal sense (and at least outside of the US), a EULA is not a contract.
But bear with me a second. Let us assume that a EULA is a legally binding contract. Unfortunately, some people cannot enter into contracts. Children, for example, cannot sign their life away. If a child clicks "I Accept", then it binds them to the terms of the EULA not one bit. (That does not mean a child can run off hundreds of copies of World of Warcraft; that's not breach of contract, that's infringement of copyright.) So a child, or a minor, or anyone not legally able to sign contracts could happily hack away.
Similarly, there are issues - which the federal court fails to deal with - concerning sale rights. If I sell a computer with legally purchased software pre-installed, then the purchaser has not clicked on "I Agree". How can they be bound by the terms of the EULA?
This is a much more complex area than people commonly realise. But one thing remains certain: Apple does not have an absolue monopoly in determining what every legal purchaser of OS X can do with their copy.
In the UK we have The Sale of Goods Act, which states that goods must have "fitness for purpose" - i.e. that they can run on your projector, or whatever. If goods do not have this, then you can demand your money back. The store has no right to only allow swaps or credit notes; you can demand your money back.
(You might also be able to get them on the "of merchantable quality" - if it doesn't play, it certainly isn't of merchantable quality...")
The other nice thing about this is that the retailers end up having the fight with the MPAA: if enough people keep bringing back the movies, they'll say something like 'sort it out, or we drop your products with this "feature"'
[This is an OT rant, feel free to mod down. Really, if you're doing your jobs as a mod correctly, you should just move on to the "Off Topic" thingy and do that click thing. But please don't use the over-rated mod. That one really sucks. This is incredibly, I'm getting off topic in the header to my off topic rant. Where was I?]
[rant]
"I'm anti-stock market"
What exactly does this mean? Do you mean people should not be allowed to own shares in businesses? That would be a pretty extreme position. So, I'll assume you don't mean that. Otherwise you'd probably want to say "I'm a real hard line Marxist."
OK: perhaps it means "I oppose the voluntary transfer of ownership stakes in businesses". But that is equally absurd. No-one would ever be able to see a business, or merge with another company. And if a business owner needed a life saving operation, she wouldn't be able to sell her company.
Right: what are we going for then. "I'm opposed to people freeling transfering their stakes in businesses in a regulated environment." Ummmm. No, still not getting it. Unless you're such a free market libertarian, and you're opposed to the concept of regulation.
So, what exactly does "I'm anti-stock market" mean? It's an absurd, ridiculous statement. At least say something meaningful like "I high-tech companies have a tendancy to be over-priced in the stock market. Investors tend to get terribly excited about growth and over-rate competitive advantage. To contextualise, Google would have to grow 50% a year for the next 5 years - no mean feat! - to possibly justify a valuation of 80 times next years' earnings." Now, I have no idea if the last sentance is correct (or even more than superficially meaningful), but it's a damn sight smarter than "I'm anti-stock market".
[/rant]
I just ran Vista on VMWare to see if this is the case. And it is and it isn't. It causes the WMF viewer to fall over on my build (5270), but it doesn't seem to infect anything. Certainly, my machine is not full of spyware (yet).
And I apologise too. I thought you'd just made it up. Looks like a troll entered that into Wikipedia.
Cheers, Robert
...says
From the actual dictionary:
Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
That's not quite the same thing, is it? Did you, per chance, think you could just slip through a random definition (blatantly made up); throw a few (admittedly largely well deserved) insults, and get some instant "Karma".
Well, I guess you succeeded in getting the "Karma".
Sometimes you have to wonder why any decent attractive woman in her right mind would ever create a profile on one of those things.
I am not a Match.com employee. In fact, I know nothing about the company.
But two and a half years ago, I met a girl on it. We chatted, dated, and now are engaged to be married. She is geeky enough to design web-sites and have her own blog. Yet she is also intelligent, funny, and - dare I say it - drop dead gorgeous.
Perhaps you should ask her why she signed up?
There is a very efficient way to secure your Linux box from the average script kiddy. It's simple and only takes about 5 seconds.
/usr/bin/wget
:-)
chmod 500
Congratulations: you've stopped practically every script kiddy. (Every exploit I've ever seen has used wget to pull down a "root kit". So deny wget to every user but root. If you want to be clever, you can allow sudo use of wget, but don't feel obliged.)
Of course, this isn't real security. But if I'm running poorly debugged PHP apps on my webserver (you know who you are), then it's a must if I'm to stop my machine getting comprimised.
Oh yes: and learn how chroot works. It'll save you a great many headaches
Cheers,
Robert
So: let me get this straight, you modded the grand parent down. Then you posted a comment. Which automatically removes the moderation.
Are you feeling OK today? Would you like someone else to help you to moderate?
(Not me, of course, as by posting I prevent myself from moderating...)
It's a nice theory; but if it's true, why was the European release delayed? Surely if they were having trouble selling all the PSPs they were making, they wouldn't have postponed selling to the Brits and the French...
Also: use NPD numbers with care. They (and they admit this) only cover a minority of retail in the US. Their sales numbers do not include Amazon.com, for example. In addition Sony management has been telling investors they are to ramp PSP production to 1.5m units a month: again, not something they would be planning with 5m unsold units
My guess is that Sony's probably sitting on a little more PSP inventory than they would like, but not the 5m units you're claiming.
This is a really terrific idea, as it allows for the wiki ideal to continue, while at the same time reducing the possibility of defacement, errors slipping in.
You could allow articles to move from unstable to stable, allowing stuff to move when it has been moderated by two people with the wikipedia equivilent of good karma (100 accepted changes, or something like that). You could even be relatively smart about this, pushing moderation of pages in the physics area to people who edited other physics pages. (Although never to people who have produced significant edits on the same page, as this could perpetuate the problem of new information not been reflected in pages.)
Try Horde/IMP.
There are probably others but IMP is great.
I think this is "Funny", rather than "Informative". Unless you know something about the Australia-US trade treaty the rest of us don't.