according to the Bible, in Christian communities this developed into an entirely socialist system, where resources were jointly held and distributed by a central authority. Failure to comply was punishable by death.
I assume you're talking about the account of Ananias and Saphira. If so, you are misrepresenting it. When you read the whole story in Acts 5, it's clear that Ananias and Saphira died not because they didn't give all the profits from selling their land, but because they gave part of the profits and said it was all the profits.
In fact, Peter explicitly says about the land "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" This obviously means they were not required to sell their land, and even after they did, they were not required to give 100% of the proceeds. It was not their failure to comply with the socialist system but rather their lie that got them killed.
Unfortunately, SKU conveys a very specific meaning that's hard to express as succinctly as "SKU." Some people use it for the meaning, and some use it to sound all businessy. You need to actually distinguish which are which.
"Unit" doesn't work as a synonym for SKU, though. You could say "two units," but that may mean two SKUs, or two instances of a single SKU.
As I said above, I don't like businessese anymore than anyone else here, but SKU has a very specific, very useful meaning that isn't easily conveyed by other words.
I don't like businessese, either, but SKU has meaning beyond either of your two proposed synonyms.
"Model" doesn't cut it because you might have two packages with the exact same XBOX, but one has a game included and one doesn't. One model, two SKUs.
"Product" doesn't cut it specifically because of bundling. You wouldn't call an XBOX plus a game a single product. It's two products combined into a single SKU.
The closest thing I can think of that really could replace SKU is "packaging" as a discrete noun --- "a packaging", "two packagings" --- but that's confusing because it's a nonstandard use of that word. Just "SKU" is much clearer.
I'm open to other suggestions, but I haven't yet found a clear word that conveys all the meaning present in "SKU".
The question is, what did you think about the LotR books once you got them?
For me, personally, I don't care much for the LotR books. Tolkien's main thrust was to create a world (specifically some languages), and the story is completely secondary to that. Rowling's main thrust is her story, and her world is secondary to the story (but not as secondary as Tolkien's story).
The unfortunate result in Rowling's case is that her world isn't always consistent. The unfortunate result in Tolkien's case is that 1/3 of the book is spent waiting for something to happen, and a further third is spent doing random stuff that doesn't further a plot (back off, Tom Bombadillophiles).
So it's really a matter of what you want out of a fantasy book. If you can stomach the fact that the rules change slightly between books, HP could be up your alley. If not, perhaps you should look elsewhere.
It's less of a deus ex machina if it's been planned for years and was set up three books prior. I believe priori incantatem fits both those criteria. Not everything in the books fits, but that did.
The real reason they charge $20 for all their programs is so people will look at the $50 price on their full Object Desktop suite for a year, and say "Hey, I get about twelve dozen more programs for just over twice as much; that's a good deal!"
The people they con into buying the one program for $20 are just easier money than they're used to; they still want those people to upgrade to the full suite.
I was a subscriber for a long time. It's not a bad little suite, but every program has its quirks, and I finally found it less trouble to just use the default interface. I still use WindowBlinds, though (Velvet Waves forever!).
Dude. E-mail isn't an acronym. It's a contraction of "electronic mail." Typing it in all caps all the time doesn't make you look very, um, "jolly impressive".
Not completely different. If a Microsoft EULA has clout, it's only because copyright law gives Microsoft the right to exert that clout. All EULAs are themselves "via copyright law."
That problem's easy enough to get around by slightly reformulating the premise:
There exists a "universe" A with no causality and one omnipotent being. The being in "universe" A created "universe" B, which DOES have causality, whose initial state consisted of [whatever], and which we are now living in.
If you can coax them this far along, this is what most religious people (including myself) believe.
(Note that I believe that [whatever] consists of the earliest moment of the Big Bang, and that it's been a dozen or so billion years since [whatever].)
Re:That's all very well...
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 1
Stardock is fat bloated and heavy
Only if you use a fat bloated and heavy skin, in which case you deserve what you get. Some skins are very, very easy on resources and performance. (They usually correspond to the ones that are easy on the eyes, too.)
As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.
But I may just be getting that from random ignorant Slashdot comments that don't know what they're talking about, so y'know.
No, it won't. Apple makes its money from hardware sales. Steve Jobs knows this and knows he is in no position to cannibalize Apple's primary source of income with such a maneuver.
In effect, he'd be saying "This Mac experience that we sell people for a couple thousand dollars? Now we're selling it to you for a couple hundred." Does that sound smart to you?
Slashdot Mirror
I assume you're talking about the account of Ananias and Saphira. If so, you are misrepresenting it. When you read the whole story in Acts 5, it's clear that Ananias and Saphira died not because they didn't give all the profits from selling their land, but because they gave part of the profits and said it was all the profits.
In fact, Peter explicitly says about the land "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" This obviously means they were not required to sell their land, and even after they did, they were not required to give 100% of the proceeds. It was not their failure to comply with the socialist system but rather their lie that got them killed.
Ditto the guys above. What right does a cab driver have to privacy from his company when he's in his company's car and working on company time?
Hudson Soft is the developer of the Mario Party games, not Nintendo.
Unfortunately, SKU conveys a very specific meaning that's hard to express as succinctly as "SKU." Some people use it for the meaning, and some use it to sound all businessy. You need to actually distinguish which are which.
"Unit" doesn't work as a synonym for SKU, though. You could say "two units," but that may mean two SKUs, or two instances of a single SKU.
As I said above, I don't like businessese anymore than anyone else here, but SKU has a very specific, very useful meaning that isn't easily conveyed by other words.
I don't like businessese, either, but SKU has meaning beyond either of your two proposed synonyms.
"Model" doesn't cut it because you might have two packages with the exact same XBOX, but one has a game included and one doesn't. One model, two SKUs.
"Product" doesn't cut it specifically because of bundling. You wouldn't call an XBOX plus a game a single product. It's two products combined into a single SKU.
The closest thing I can think of that really could replace SKU is "packaging" as a discrete noun --- "a packaging", "two packagings" --- but that's confusing because it's a nonstandard use of that word. Just "SKU" is much clearer.
I'm open to other suggestions, but I haven't yet found a clear word that conveys all the meaning present in "SKU".
Polite mistake pointing-out: every instance of "to" in your above post should be "too." When you can replace the word with "overly", it has two Os.
The question is, what did you think about the LotR books once you got them?
For me, personally, I don't care much for the LotR books. Tolkien's main thrust was to create a world (specifically some languages), and the story is completely secondary to that. Rowling's main thrust is her story, and her world is secondary to the story (but not as secondary as Tolkien's story).
The unfortunate result in Rowling's case is that her world isn't always consistent. The unfortunate result in Tolkien's case is that 1/3 of the book is spent waiting for something to happen, and a further third is spent doing random stuff that doesn't further a plot (back off, Tom Bombadillophiles).
So it's really a matter of what you want out of a fantasy book. If you can stomach the fact that the rules change slightly between books, HP could be up your alley. If not, perhaps you should look elsewhere.
Apparently not, since Dumbledore in fact utters the exact words "You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make."
It's less of a deus ex machina if it's been planned for years and was set up three books prior. I believe priori incantatem fits both those criteria. Not everything in the books fits, but that did.
The real reason they charge $20 for all their programs is so people will look at the $50 price on their full Object Desktop suite for a year, and say "Hey, I get about twelve dozen more programs for just over twice as much; that's a good deal!"
The people they con into buying the one program for $20 are just easier money than they're used to; they still want those people to upgrade to the full suite.
I was a subscriber for a long time. It's not a bad little suite, but every program has its quirks, and I finally found it less trouble to just use the default interface. I still use WindowBlinds, though (Velvet Waves forever!).
Dude. E-mail isn't an acronym. It's a contraction of "electronic mail." Typing it in all caps all the time doesn't make you look very, um, "jolly impressive".
Not completely different. If a Microsoft EULA has clout, it's only because copyright law gives Microsoft the right to exert that clout. All EULAs are themselves "via copyright law."
The text in them is, via copyright law.
The music on them is, via copyright law.
The design of them is, via copyright law.
And the physical media you buy software on isn't licensed, but the software itself is, via copyright law.
You do not have the right to other people's creations on your own terms.
That problem's easy enough to get around by slightly reformulating the premise:
If you can coax them this far along, this is what most religious people (including myself) believe.
(Note that I believe that [whatever] consists of the earliest moment of the Big Bang, and that it's been a dozen or so billion years since [whatever].)
Only if you use a fat bloated and heavy skin, in which case you deserve what you get. Some skins are very, very easy on resources and performance. (They usually correspond to the ones that are easy on the eyes, too.)
As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.
But I may just be getting that from random ignorant Slashdot comments that don't know what they're talking about, so y'know.
(captcha: "proviso")
What d'you think about sesame seeds?
No, it won't. Apple makes its money from hardware sales. Steve Jobs knows this and knows he is in no position to cannibalize Apple's primary source of income with such a maneuver.
In effect, he'd be saying "This Mac experience that we sell people for a couple thousand dollars? Now we're selling it to you for a couple hundred." Does that sound smart to you?
See my above post on "intrinsic value".
See my above response.
No, it's you who are confusing your personal idea of "value" with the accepted definition of "intrinsic value".
"Virii" is not now and has never been a word.
"Virii" is not now and has never been a word.
Wow. That's a really old laptop.