Many users seem to be able to get a "one-time" ability to re-download all their songs from iTunes Music Store by contacting Apple and gently explaining their situation.
Summary: if the mean temperature is constant and natural fluctuations are normally distributed, we can expect a continuous stream of 'largest' and 'smallest' record observations, coming increasingly infrequently.
But if the mean temperature is increasing, we'll expect more frequent and larger records. If the variation doesn't increase we expect less frequent 'small' records. These things can be tested for and frequently are. The comment and linked material doesn't acknowledge this.
My major annoyance, which has driven me back to windows, has to do with microsoft products on the macintosh, specifically Office v.X.
With office on the macintosh, I had problems with most documents I opened - usually one or both of - long filename support (moderately long file names are truncated in office; os X and windows have no problems with the long filenames, it's all office's fault) - support for windows metafile (wmf) format is terrible on office v.X for the mac - many, many images would be replaced with a big X
Now I love having vi, I use TeX, I even use open office now and then, but in the collaborative environment I work in, that's not enough. I need to be able to get office files from colleagues and read them, edit them, and send them back. And I just can't.
A voting system which returns a "not sure, try again" answer would be interesting. I'm not sure that it would be better than a system which, through a random process, selects a winner even when there is not a discernable winner.
Maybe the problem is with the question: Find a single winner after counting votes from 100+ million people. A huge proportion of voters is disappointed -- not just in 2000 but in almost all elections.
So what happens if you return the library book, but the library forgets to record the fact? Then you've got to cough up the money for the book you returned.
On more than one occasion, at more than one library, I've had to go down into the stacks, find the book I still had "charged out", and show it to the person at the checkout desk.
And another point: what's worse, someone being able to find out what I read or the very idea that knowing what someone reads could be used as evidence against them somehow? What about freedom to associate with ideas?
(Note, I still think that library records should be secret, but it worries me that secrecy is so important.)
Slashdot Mirror
On the whole, it's the publishers that do the rearranging of problems, not the author.
Kickbacks? What are you talking about?
I've taught courses at universities for 10 years and I've never heard of this.
I think the canonical response is "you must be new here".
It's not that simple. The peak production in 1979 was followed by lower production every year from 1980 to 1994.
You are toying with us. Find better fake names!
http://towel.sourceforge.net/
http://freshmeat.net/projects/ketchup-lksm
Do you mean salon.com?
Many users seem to be able to get a "one-time" ability to re-download all their songs from iTunes Music Store by contacting Apple and gently explaining their situation.
You had a CD in 1979?
Too late -- done already.
Benford, Bear, and Brin wrote Foundation's Fear; Foundation and Chaos; Foundation's Triumph
When counting rare things (species, computers, OS, etc.) the error estimate is much, much higher than on abundant things.
Nature and several other journals owned by Macmillan
l /02_intro.xml&style=xml/02_intro.xsl
http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xm
Summary: if the mean temperature is constant and natural fluctuations are normally distributed, we can expect a continuous stream of 'largest' and 'smallest' record observations, coming increasingly infrequently.
But if the mean temperature is increasing, we'll expect more frequent and larger records. If the variation doesn't increase we expect less frequent 'small' records. These things can be tested for and frequently are. The comment and linked material doesn't acknowledge this.
My major annoyance, which has driven me back to windows, has to do with microsoft products on the macintosh, specifically Office v.X.
With office on the macintosh, I had problems with most documents I opened - usually one or both of
- long filename support (moderately long file names are truncated in office; os X and windows have no problems with the long filenames, it's all office's fault)
- support for windows metafile (wmf) format is terrible on office v.X for the mac - many, many images would be replaced with a big X
Now I love having vi, I use TeX, I even use open office now and then, but in the collaborative environment I work in, that's not enough. I need to be able to get office files from colleagues and read them, edit them, and send them back. And I just can't.
A voting system which returns a "not sure, try again" answer would be interesting. I'm not sure that it would be better than a system which, through a random process, selects a winner even when there is not a discernable winner.
Maybe the problem is with the question: Find a single winner after counting votes from 100+ million people. A huge proportion of voters is disappointed -- not just in 2000 but in almost all elections.
So what happens if you return the library book, but the library forgets to record the fact? Then you've got to cough up the money for the book you returned.
On more than one occasion, at more than one library, I've had to go down into the stacks, find the book I still had "charged out", and show it to the person at the checkout desk.
And another point: what's worse, someone being able to find out what I read or the very idea that knowing what someone reads could be used as evidence against them somehow? What about freedom to associate with ideas?
(Note, I still think that library records should be secret, but it worries me that secrecy is so important.)
From the article: Microsoft chairman Bill Gates "is really annoyed by the incredible pain we put everyone through in computing."
Now, if you believe that, you can believe the rest of the article.