The original poster may be referring to the "philosophical" dilemma Neo faces in M:Reloaded, in deciding whether to reboot the Matrix or save Trinity (and doom Xion).
... or the dilemma the Wachowski brothers faced in deciding whether to kill themselves after M:Revolutions was in the can.
The irony of all this, is that the only companies allowed to be deemed "trustworthy" are the corporate entities whose employees are shielded from personal liability.
Yahoo! has been investing broadly and shallowly for its entire existence.
Yahoo!'s strategy has ALWAYS been to develop JUST enough of a presence in any given vertical market that some fraction of its 300 million users will wander over to the sites from the Yahoo! home page or their Yahoo! Mail account, to justify its existence.
If Yahoo! has ever invested deeply in any area, you can be damn sure it was because some C-level employee or SVP decided to make it their personal crusade, not because it was standard operating procedure actually to follow through on making great products.
Sadly it seems Google (which also needs as much distribution for its ads as it can get) is going down this path as well, but they're better at making splashes here and there, and they are fortunate enough to be enjoying the kind of consumer goodwill that Yahoo! had in its heyday so folks aren't jaded with this not-so-novel approach yet.
Allow me to open up another can of worms by postulating that the problem with your filtered text is not its readability so much as the unlikelihood that today's youth would recognize the underlying translated document.
Whether circles of higher academia ever sanction Wikipedia is largely of concern to academics. The debate over whether Wikipedia is a reliable reference source is misguided; it is like comparing apples and fruit cocktail.
Wikipedia taken as a whole (including the vandalism and nonsense) is as much about zeitgeist as it is accuracy. Uncontroversial topics with exclusively dispassionate editors are likely be to reference quality because the world is not paying attention to them. Contemporary topics mixed up in controversy are more likely to have style and NPOV problems because they reflect that spirit of the times.
Put another way, if I go to Wikipedia and see a vandalized or nonsense article, or one that is clearly biased (stating opinions and perceptions as facts), I know that the topic about which I'm reading is one that some people feel strongly about. That in and of itself is interesting information, separate from the facts that may or may not be there.
I'd understand if there were some concision to be gained but it's the same number of letters, barely an improvement in pronunciation time, and as the parent mentioned, hugely annoying.
I would gladly smack anyone in person who said "lappie", if the oppty preso'd itself.
With the exception of the question about how they achieve such a low defect/KLOC rate, none of the questions really begged particularly technical answers.
The Microsoft corporation exists to return value to its shareholders.
There is a lot of upside priced into its stock, predicated on their presumed future "excellence."
Any gesture or admission otherwise by an official of the company would have a negative effect on the stock price and open them to lawsuits by stockholders who would allege that they have breached their duty by not giving guidance heretofore on their lack of "excellence".
Google's stock price is based on mystique. Investors don't know what they're going to do next so they give them the benefit of the doubt and price the stock as if every effort they're undertaking will be successful as AdWords/AdSense.
Contrast to amazon.com which is priced much closer to earth because all their cards are on the table.
Google knows that at this point the switching cost to move to the next best thing when it arrives is low, so they have to sell the future and keep it secret and holy as long as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
His body was 96 but he had lost his noodle long before.
Don't forget the psychos.
Slashdot demands a laptop that can play PenQuake and DoomWrite for hours on end AND at a minimum of 10sps (strokes per second).
The irony of all this, is that the only companies allowed to be deemed "trustworthy" are the corporate entities whose employees are shielded from personal liability.
The fine seems reasonable, will they accept cash?
Yahoo!'s strategy has ALWAYS been to develop JUST enough of a presence in any given vertical market that some fraction of its 300 million users will wander over to the sites from the Yahoo! home page or their Yahoo! Mail account, to justify its existence.
If Yahoo! has ever invested deeply in any area, you can be damn sure it was because some C-level employee or SVP decided to make it their personal crusade, not because it was standard operating procedure actually to follow through on making great products.
Sadly it seems Google (which also needs as much distribution for its ads as it can get) is going down this path as well, but they're better at making splashes here and there, and they are fortunate enough to be enjoying the kind of consumer goodwill that Yahoo! had in its heyday so folks aren't jaded with this not-so-novel approach yet.
Allow me to open up another can of worms by postulating that the problem with your filtered text is not its readability so much as the unlikelihood that today's youth would recognize the underlying translated document.
Wikipedia taken as a whole (including the vandalism and nonsense) is as much about zeitgeist as it is accuracy. Uncontroversial topics with exclusively dispassionate editors are likely be to reference quality because the world is not paying attention to them. Contemporary topics mixed up in controversy are more likely to have style and NPOV problems because they reflect that spirit of the times.
Put another way, if I go to Wikipedia and see a vandalized or nonsense article, or one that is clearly biased (stating opinions and perceptions as facts), I know that the topic about which I'm reading is one that some people feel strongly about. That in and of itself is interesting information, separate from the facts that may or may not be there.
I'd understand if there were some concision to be gained but it's the same number of letters, barely an improvement in pronunciation time, and as the parent mentioned, hugely annoying.
I would gladly smack anyone in person who said "lappie", if the oppty preso'd itself.
OK, I have to concede he handwaved around the filesystem question pretty blatantly
With the exception of the question about how they achieve such a low defect/KLOC rate, none of the questions really begged particularly technical answers.
<META NAME="msnbot" CONTENT="noarchive">
Done.
Didn't Prince try this in the 90's?
My bathtub full of brightly-colored machine tools would absolutely disagree with us.
Touché.
There is a lot of upside priced into its stock, predicated on their presumed future "excellence."
Any gesture or admission otherwise by an official of the company would have a negative effect on the stock price and open them to lawsuits by stockholders who would allege that they have breached their duty by not giving guidance heretofore on their lack of "excellence".
How unironic that Palestinians need an anonymous coward to plead their case. Bring it on, foes.
That's all I can say right now ... just wait.
You forgot to sign your first post with EMC's private key, so I reject your claim.
Well that explains all the insider selling. Obviously they've been beta testing this feature for Google Finance.
Contrast to amazon.com which is priced much closer to earth because all their cards are on the table.
Google knows that at this point the switching cost to move to the next best thing when it arrives is low, so they have to sell the future and keep it secret and holy as long as possible.
Locally these are known as "" which translates literally to "birth control parlor".
It won't work. If you believe otherwise, they have a bridge they'd like to sell to you.