Standard citation procedure for websites is to provide the URL and the date and time you accessed it. With Wikipedia you can give the time and date you accessed it, along with the actual page you viewed. Can't think of anything more reliable than that.
If you want to reference the unstable latest copy, go ahead. That's the risk you will take when the one marking your paper looks at Wikipedia.
Thanks for marking that as a troll mods. Thanks to marking a non-troll comment -1, I had no idea what was being replied to until the mod forced me to review comments at -1.
I've always liked three sentence paragraphs in formal writing because I find that when I formulate an argument my sentences tend to be related, and funnily enough I find that a minimum of three sentences is required to effectively get my point across.
How interesting. Every one of those sentences was related to the one concept you were trying to convey. You could have concatenated those sentence together into a (gasp!) paragraph.
Maybe so, but I'm old fashioned. Style guides like "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk state that:
"As a rule, single sentences should not be written or printed as paragraphs. An exception may be made of sentences of transition, indicating the relation between the parts of an exposition or argument."
How interesting you say that your comment exceeds three paragraphs. You are aware that a paragraph consists of more than one sentence? The bare minimum for a proper paragraph is three sentences, something I see you have failed to understand. In this case, I think that it's the content and not the style that stops people from reading your comment.
In order to explain to potential customers why they should register and pay for their content, they have placed the article as a registration required article.
"Opening multiple, sequential, stand-alone advertisements in the owner or operator's internet browser without the authorization of an owner or operator and that a reasonable computer user cannot close without turning off the computer or closing the internet browser"
Your arse is the U.S. Government's, suckers. No more last measure script for you!
I was more addressing those who attack America for being founded by Puritans. The way they talk, you'd think that they were the only ones to found your country!
No way is option 3 or 4 any good! The fair dealing legislation is a joke. In this regard, the U.S. is in a FAR better position that Australians are. You are aware that the fair dealing legislation is VERY narrow and only covers those who are doing:
1. Research and study 2. Review and criticism 3. "Reporting the news", or 4. Legal advice (although the Crown is deemed to own copyright in federal statutes, and each State in state statutes).
You'd think that research and study would be pretty good, but noooo. You MUST demostrate that you are doing some particular course to even get close to this. You cannot be doing private research and reproduce any of the material on a medium such as a blog, etc.
Only number 1 (consolidate the fair dealing exceptions in a single open-ended provision) seems reasonable to me. And that is only good if clear legislation is formed.
... I always laugh when I hear this. The US was founded by a bunch of people fleeing persecution from the British, who were quite willing to do horrible things to them in their thousands. They lived their lives to a strict moral code, true, but I doubt you'd be looking into the causes of that because for that you'd need half a brain.
Perhaps if more people studied church history we wouldn't hear these particularly stupid comments everytime we get to the old "Australia the land of convicts", "Oh yeah? You guys were founded by uptight Puritans!" retorts.
Slashdot Mirror
Standard citation procedure for websites is to provide the URL and the date and time you accessed it. With Wikipedia you can give the time and date you accessed it, along with the actual page you viewed. Can't think of anything more reliable than that.
If you want to reference the unstable latest copy, go ahead. That's the risk you will take when the one marking your paper looks at Wikipedia.
Thanks for marking that as a troll mods. Thanks to marking a non-troll comment -1, I had no idea what was being replied to until the mod forced me to review comments at -1.
... I'm about to become an admin... should I edit the front page? Nah :-)
... what a load of crap. What about publicly list ethical funds? Please, when you get a clue will you let us all know? We'd very much appreciate it.
That's a Wikipedia server admin that's speaking.
So that explains why the database is locked.
... but why didn't you mention it was about pedophilia?
Missing the point I see! Well done.
Microsoft: when we stuff strictly user space application into the operating system, it gives consumers a better product!
Point taken.
I've always liked three sentence paragraphs in formal writing because I find that when I formulate an argument my sentences tend to be related, and funnily enough I find that a minimum of three sentences is required to effectively get my point across.
How interesting. Every one of those sentences was related to the one concept you were trying to convey. You could have concatenated those sentence together into a (gasp!) paragraph.
Maybe so, but I'm old fashioned. Style guides like "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk state that:
"As a rule, single sentences should not be written or printed as paragraphs. An exception may be made of sentences of transition, indicating the relation between the parts of an exposition or argument."
Find me a guide to writing style that says that. Cite your source, and I might change my opinion.
How interesting you say that your comment exceeds three paragraphs. You are aware that a paragraph consists of more than one sentence? The bare minimum for a proper paragraph is three sentences, something I see you have failed to understand. In this case, I think that it's the content and not the style that stops people from reading your comment.
HTH.
In order to explain to potential customers why they should register and pay for their content, they have placed the article as a registration required article.
Way to go NYT!
"Opening multiple, sequential, stand-alone advertisements in the owner or operator's internet browser without the authorization of an owner or operator and that a reasonable computer user cannot close without turning off the computer or closing the internet browser"
Your arse is the U.S. Government's, suckers. No more last measure script for you!
We've had spam legislation longer than the United States has, and our legislation covers all Australians. The U.S. cannot say as much.
I was more addressing those who attack America for being founded by Puritans. The way they talk, you'd think that they were the only ones to found your country!
No way is option 3 or 4 any good! The fair dealing legislation is a joke. In this regard, the U.S. is in a FAR better position that Australians are. You are aware that the fair dealing legislation is VERY narrow and only covers those who are doing:
1. Research and study
2. Review and criticism
3. "Reporting the news", or
4. Legal advice (although the Crown is deemed to own copyright in federal statutes, and each State in state statutes).
You'd think that research and study would be pretty good, but noooo. You MUST demostrate that you are doing some particular course to even get close to this. You cannot be doing private research and reproduce any of the material on a medium such as a blog, etc.
Only number 1 (consolidate the fair dealing exceptions in a single open-ended provision) seems reasonable to me. And that is only good if clear legislation is formed.
... he hates you because you're free.
They are filming "The Memphis Trousers Half Hour". Very amusing :-)
... I always laugh when I hear this. The US was founded by a bunch of people fleeing persecution from the British, who were quite willing to do horrible things to them in their thousands. They lived their lives to a strict moral code, true, but I doubt you'd be looking into the causes of that because for that you'd need half a brain.
Perhaps if more people studied church history we wouldn't hear these particularly stupid comments everytime we get to the old "Australia the land of convicts", "Oh yeah? You guys were founded by uptight Puritans!" retorts.
No, we just can't own semi-automatic and automatic rifles, you drongo.
Welcome to the world of Australian taxi drivers.