Nobody mentions that by setting a maximum bid at a number that doesn't fall on a multiple of the bid increment, the plaintiff in this case is essentially gaming eBay to get around the bid increment requirement. What eBay should do when somebody enters a max bid that doesn't land on an increment is refuse the bid and ask whether you meant the increment lower or higher than the number you entered.
People should be happy that eBay is being nice enough to honor max bids that contravene their bid increment rules.
What exactly are you saying? That if there aren't enough money in ads and channel subscription fees, it should just die?
No. My point is that if fans are giving their money to Paramount to make more Enterprise, then Paramount should be expected to give up at least part of their ad revenue. The fairest way to do that (since not everyone planning to watch Enterprise is giving toward the cause) is to give some of the ad revenue back to the fans who are giving. Hence, investment.
Now, if nobody insists that this is an investment rather than a donation, then Paramount will put just as much ad time in each episode, will charge local operators just as much money to air the series, and will *still* make these dedicated fans pay just as much as everyone else for the series when it comes out on DVD.
If they cannot prove that the election wasn't stolen, it must be presumed to be stolen, even if we conversely cannot prove that it actually was.
Even if one accepts your premise that the burden of proof for validation of the election is on the state, you still cannot simply reduce an un-"proven" election to the statement "the election was stolen". It's just as possible that any election fraud was perpetrated to help the person who ultimately lost the election, meaning that while someone attempted to steal the election, they were unsuccessful.
The mistake here is that these dedicated fans are essentially casting their cash into the coffers of a company who has it out for their TV show. This shouldn't be viewed as a project that requires their donations to make it happen. This should be an investment, something with a potential return on their capital.
I get the feeling that while the OP might like the concept of OSS (free as in speech and all that), he's just as interested in the actual benefits of OSS to end users as opposed to developers (meaning, free as in beer). While the OSS movement may (and hopefully will) benefit from the attention, I think the ideology here is to run a budget-friendly campaign, as the OP put it.
No, it's not. It's not like I didn't get the whole Aliens planting the idea of angels story, it'ms that I think it is quite lame. Slight difference. I might have felt different if the aliens didn't see them as angels with bumpy foreheads.
Er... This pretty much seals it for me - you really *did* miss the point.
Suppose you're engineering a way for other races to see your race as beings of light and goodness. Do you:
(a) Create your perceived image of light and goodness such that it's totally alien to all the races you wish to manipulate into revering you, or
(b) Create a template that puts forth the appearance of light and goodness, and apply that template to each race such that they see essentially a member of their own race, yet bursting forth with light and goodness?
It makes *sense* that the Drazi see the Vorlon-in-angel's-clothing as one of themselves, forehead adornments and all, because it means they will be far more likely to accept the Vorlons for what they wish to be seen as.
Unlikely in the short-term, as the reason he dropped plans for Enterprise and/or a new Star Trek series was because Paramount wanted to let the Star Trek franchise take a breather for a couple years.
I think that's a mistake, of course, not to take JMS up on possible involvement in Enterprise, but there's no way in hell that the Paramount execs are going to reverse their decision to cancel Enterprise now. The series finale has already been advertised as being this May, and no TV exec wants to eat a heapin' helpin' o' humble pie. Unfortunate, since the last several eps of Enterprise show that the series does have potential, when Rick Beavis and Brannon Butt-Head aren't writing the scripts.
The linked page indicates that while random() % choices isn't perfectly fair, the larger the number generated by random(), the closer to fair the algorithm gets.
If their RNG only generates numbers between 0 and 64k-1, then an iPod with 5000 songs on it gives 536 songs each an extra 1 in 65536 chance not given to the other songs.
If there is an anomaly here, it's most likely not due to that.
No, they compared the two because it was an easy way to play with statistics and obtain hyperbole out the other end. You can use the exact same rationale to determine that one Peyton Manning is, as a human being, worth about 500 waitresses.
In fairness to other CC companies out there, MBNA is not the only company who does this. Regardless of who your CC company is, check out their website (make sure you get the URL off your statement - don't just blindly type it in or Google for it!) to see if your company offers this service.
Isn't it possible - in fact, far more likely - that Funcom secured in-game advertising as a source of revenue first, and then decided that they could make the game subscription-free? The article suggests that it happened the other way around.
Fortunately, Austin Powers ensured that the term "floater" is permanently ensconced in the American psyche as well - even though Beavis and Butt-Head introduced it many years previous.
Doesn't this just encourage the movie industry to game the Google system and post fake good reviews for their movies? I mean, I know the industry already does this, but now they're encouraged to spam the Intarweb with more and more shill reviews to get their star rating up on Google.
Funny indeed, but it also raises a point - how do these astronomers know that it's not just some intervening (and likely much, much closer) object that's opaque to visible light but permits radio wavelengths to pass through?
Slashdot Mirror
My, my, this thread is certainly separating the true nerds from the wannabe's.
Nobody mentions that by setting a maximum bid at a number that doesn't fall on a multiple of the bid increment, the plaintiff in this case is essentially gaming eBay to get around the bid increment requirement. What eBay should do when somebody enters a max bid that doesn't land on an increment is refuse the bid and ask whether you meant the increment lower or higher than the number you entered.
People should be happy that eBay is being nice enough to honor max bids that contravene their bid increment rules.
What exactly are you saying? That if there aren't enough money in ads and channel subscription fees, it should just die?
No. My point is that if fans are giving their money to Paramount to make more Enterprise, then Paramount should be expected to give up at least part of their ad revenue. The fairest way to do that (since not everyone planning to watch Enterprise is giving toward the cause) is to give some of the ad revenue back to the fans who are giving. Hence, investment.
Now, if nobody insists that this is an investment rather than a donation, then Paramount will put just as much ad time in each episode, will charge local operators just as much money to air the series, and will *still* make these dedicated fans pay just as much as everyone else for the series when it comes out on DVD.
The fans need to hire themselves a lawyer.
In case you didn't see it, the bill does include a provision to forbid voting equipment from using wireless.
If they cannot prove that the election wasn't stolen, it must be presumed to be stolen, even if we conversely cannot prove that it actually was.
Even if one accepts your premise that the burden of proof for validation of the election is on the state, you still cannot simply reduce an un-"proven" election to the statement "the election was stolen". It's just as possible that any election fraud was perpetrated to help the person who ultimately lost the election, meaning that while someone attempted to steal the election, they were unsuccessful.
It cannot be assumed that FireFox doesn't have the same amount of bugs and vulnerabilities, it hasn't had as much attention paid to it.
Actually, being open source, it's had far more attention paid to it than IE has.
The mistake here is that these dedicated fans are essentially casting their cash into the coffers of a company who has it out for their TV show. This shouldn't be viewed as a project that requires their donations to make it happen. This should be an investment, something with a potential return on their capital.
I get the feeling that while the OP might like the concept of OSS (free as in speech and all that), he's just as interested in the actual benefits of OSS to end users as opposed to developers (meaning, free as in beer). While the OSS movement may (and hopefully will) benefit from the attention, I think the ideology here is to run a budget-friendly campaign, as the OP put it.
That said, here's what this guy's up against.
No, it's not.
It's not like I didn't get the whole Aliens planting the idea of angels story, it'ms that I think it is quite lame. Slight difference.
I might have felt different if the aliens didn't see them as angels with bumpy foreheads.
Er... This pretty much seals it for me - you really *did* miss the point.
Suppose you're engineering a way for other races to see your race as beings of light and goodness. Do you:
(a) Create your perceived image of light and goodness such that it's totally alien to all the races you wish to manipulate into revering you, or
(b) Create a template that puts forth the appearance of light and goodness, and apply that template to each race such that they see essentially a member of their own race, yet bursting forth with light and goodness?
It makes *sense* that the Drazi see the Vorlon-in-angel's-clothing as one of themselves, forehead adornments and all, because it means they will be far more likely to accept the Vorlons for what they wish to be seen as.
Unlikely in the short-term, as the reason he dropped plans for Enterprise and/or a new Star Trek series was because Paramount wanted to let the Star Trek franchise take a breather for a couple years.
I think that's a mistake, of course, not to take JMS up on possible involvement in Enterprise, but there's no way in hell that the Paramount execs are going to reverse their decision to cancel Enterprise now. The series finale has already been advertised as being this May, and no TV exec wants to eat a heapin' helpin' o' humble pie. Unfortunate, since the last several eps of Enterprise show that the series does have potential, when Rick Beavis and Brannon Butt-Head aren't writing the scripts.
The linked page indicates that while random() % choices isn't perfectly fair, the larger the number generated by random(), the closer to fair the algorithm gets.
If their RNG only generates numbers between 0 and 64k-1, then an iPod with 5000 songs on it gives 536 songs each an extra 1 in 65536 chance not given to the other songs.
If there is an anomaly here, it's most likely not due to that.
And for some reason, all those Beatles songs you put in there never seem to come up.
I think I saw that guy at the Super Bowl.
(ctrl+f, search for "coin")
No, they compared the two because it was an easy way to play with statistics and obtain hyperbole out the other end. You can use the exact same rationale to determine that one Peyton Manning is, as a human being, worth about 500 waitresses.
Nope. There are many ways to wrongfully cause someone's death that don't involve premeditation.
g e=1&word=murder
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?sta
In fairness to other CC companies out there, MBNA is not the only company who does this. Regardless of who your CC company is, check out their website (make sure you get the URL off your statement - don't just blindly type it in or Google for it!) to see if your company offers this service.
Pwned.
Isn't it possible - in fact, far more likely - that Funcom secured in-game advertising as a source of revenue first, and then decided that they could make the game subscription-free? The article suggests that it happened the other way around.
Fortunately, Austin Powers ensured that the term "floater" is permanently ensconced in the American psyche as well - even though Beavis and Butt-Head introduced it many years previous.
Wouldn't the police report that resulted from your being in an accident be a matter of public record?
Doesn't this just encourage the movie industry to game the Google system and post fake good reviews for their movies? I mean, I know the industry already does this, but now they're encouraged to spam the Intarweb with more and more shill reviews to get their star rating up on Google.
Maybe they meant this.
I just hope CmdrTaco lets us know when /. gets one of these C&D letters from them, for the posting of this article.
Funny indeed, but it also raises a point - how do these astronomers know that it's not just some intervening (and likely much, much closer) object that's opaque to visible light but permits radio wavelengths to pass through?
Just keep in mind that I didn't make it up.