I'm not sure if you intended to post to the parent of my post, i.e. refering to the fact that using google as a spellchecker is massive overkill, or if you meant to reply to my post, i.e. refering to the fact that sometimes overkill is good. Either way I think I'll stick with an online dictionary instead of google as often as I can.
Have a look at the first reply I got to the post and follow that thread. It's on thing when people doesn't "Read The Fucking Article" but at least "Read The Fucking Posts" =)
You do realize you are using a large section of the internet* to validate your spelling? I'll say it again, the internet. I'm willing to bet that if someone did some statistical analysis on this it would show that more people spell things wrong then right.
*Yes, yes, only parts of it. I am aware of the other parts. No need to be nostalgic and bring up gopher or be nit-picking and bring up ssh et cetera.
So very true. Most people seem to look at a company as an organism of sorts. "This is a friendly company" or "I love this company, they are great". What this, somewhat narrow, view fail to take in to account is that a company is no more an organism then the check out line at the local supermarket is.
Companies evolve, one set of people come in and another set of people exit. Like you said, it doesn't have to happen over night, yet a good track record is in no way a sure thing for a a good track record in the future. There are probably a good deal of examples out there, but this beeing slashdot I'll just refere to SCO and be done with it.
Same thing for me. Neither www.google.com nor www.google.se shows the link. I flushed my cache and still the same thing. I wasn't convinced it wasn't cache related yet, so I made a short trip to www.google.jp just in case (since I've never been to that site). Still no link.
Yes, because this is highly complicated to do with an ordinary pressure sensitive switch and some regular switches. Boy-o-boy will this new invention revolutionize the home shooting arcade games at home.
Mount it on a small roving robot, and maybe it could inspect those pesky tiles on the space shuttle??
THANK YOU for that last sentence. All the damn porn jokes made my mind go in a completely different direction and quite frankly, it was becoming a bit scary;)
Sure it is. Just like both Volkswagen and Jaguar both sell cars. Still, there are huge differences. In the car example the quality, status and other things differ. In your example the legal status, for example, of what they are doing differs.
My point is, if there ever was one, something that was said by Voltaire a long time ago. "A witty saying proves nothing."
...viewers of the site are being subsidized by consumers of the advertised products...
Not so. At least not if you accept the fact that advertising is bringing in enough new customers to offset the cost of the acctual advertising. Assume that more customers, and thus more sold units, will lower the per unit fixed costs of production. Lower per unit costs will lead to a shift in the supply line in a simple supply-demand model. This shift will lead to a lowering of the point where supply and demand intersect and, ie lower price charged from the consumer.
Of course, this might be offset by the upward movement of the demand-line (i.e. the increase of customers that came from advertising), depending on the form of the supply line. I tend to belive that the angle gives a, if not completely horizontal then in many cases, a fairly flat line.
In conclusion; no, consumers of a product doesn't subsidize information sources for other people. They might enable them to become cheaper but that is not the same thing.
Well said. I know that if I had come up with an advanced theory such as this I'd never reveal it. Much better to keep it to myself and not lose the $10 encyclopedia.
Again, firefox has come a long way in this department as well. I'd say firefox is way more intuitive and much easier to grasp for the average user. Only drawback is the extensive use of the plug-in system.
Don't get me wrong, I love it. But seeing it from the average user it might be a make-or-break point. "Didn't I just download firefox?! What is this I have to get now and what is that strange box that I've never seen before?"
"Considering the amazing success of Linux*, one can't help but wondering how long it will be before someone attempts to buy it."
Did that version of the question manage to show just how strange a question just was asked in the parent post? How ever it managed to get moderated up to "+5, Interesting" is simply beyond me.
*YES, thats right. I just wrote Linux and not GNU/Linux
If it's for zero grav, and not acctualy for landing on its feet, then wouldn't "air jets", ie pressure streams generated from compressed air, and a gyro or two be much more simple to generate?
IANALBIBKtWALL (I Am Not A Lawer But I've Been Known to Watch LA Law) but a few points strike me as important with regards to this reasoning.
First of, beeing a license, just because some part of it won't (hypothetically) hold up doesn't mean that the entire reasoning in the document falls down like a house of cards. If I give you a sandwich and tell you that you can "watch the sandwich, eat the sandwich, place the sandwich in orbit arround a celestial body; but never, never ever give the sandwitch to your mother" and it then turns out that the limits I've placed upon you are not legaly binding, then I'm not entirely certain that it means that I can have my sandwich back.
I seem to remember that I had some more points to bring up (mainly because I started of by saying "first of") but they slightly elude me now and as I said in the begining, they will just be speculations from a person not educated in neither the french nor the anglo-saxon, or any other, legal system.
Sure, with reasoning like that you win and I surrender unconditionaly. Marvelous technique of debating there. Ace of the retorical and logical classes where you?
As have been stated over and over again, the GPL gives rights, it does not remove them. In other words, if it is indeed non-valid, due to language related reasons or other, then the source is simply a document with copyright applied to it. No need to get all nervous and paranoid.
On a related note (and still OT) I'd be happy if someone implemented the 'smart folders' system that google uses for the email for bookmarks. So you are bookmarking a site on some C-programing, give it the tags "programing", "C" and "university".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if you intended to post to the parent of my post, i.e. refering to the fact that using google as a spellchecker is massive overkill, or if you meant to reply to my post, i.e. refering to the fact that sometimes overkill is good. Either way I think I'll stick with an online dictionary instead of google as often as I can.
Have a look at the first reply I got to the post and follow that thread. It's on thing when people doesn't "Read The Fucking Article" but at least "Read The Fucking Posts" =)
Although that was most likely not your intention I'd say you are making my argument all the more valid. =)
You do realize you are using a large section of the internet* to validate your spelling? I'll say it again, the internet. I'm willing to bet that if someone did some statistical analysis on this it would show that more people spell things wrong then right.
*Yes, yes, only parts of it. I am aware of the other parts. No need to be nostalgic and bring up gopher or be nit-picking and bring up ssh et cetera.
So very true. Most people seem to look at a company as an organism of sorts. "This is a friendly company" or "I love this company, they are great". What this, somewhat narrow, view fail to take in to account is that a company is no more an organism then the check out line at the local supermarket is.
Companies evolve, one set of people come in and another set of people exit. Like you said, it doesn't have to happen over night, yet a good track record is in no way a sure thing for a a good track record in the future. There are probably a good deal of examples out there, but this beeing slashdot I'll just refere to SCO and be done with it.
Same thing for me. Neither www.google.com nor www.google.se shows the link. I flushed my cache and still the same thing. I wasn't convinced it wasn't cache related yet, so I made a short trip to www.google.jp just in case (since I've never been to that site). Still no link.
Yes, because this is highly complicated to do with an ordinary pressure sensitive switch and some regular switches. Boy-o-boy will this new invention revolutionize the home shooting arcade games at home.
THANK YOU for that last sentence. All the damn porn jokes made my mind go in a completely different direction and quite frankly, it was becoming a bit scary
If only people would stop beeing so paranoid about the finger daemon then this would never happen!
"In Soviet Japan the government regulates You."
Hmm, no, wait. That didnt make any sence, on any level.
Sure it is. Just like both Volkswagen and Jaguar both sell cars. Still, there are huge differences. In the car example the quality, status and other things differ. In your example the legal status, for example, of what they are doing differs.
My point is, if there ever was one, something that was said by Voltaire a long time ago. "A witty saying proves nothing."
Not so. At least not if you accept the fact that advertising is bringing in enough new customers to offset the cost of the acctual advertising. Assume that more customers, and thus more sold units, will lower the per unit fixed costs of production. Lower per unit costs will lead to a shift in the supply line in a simple supply-demand model. This shift will lead to a lowering of the point where supply and demand intersect and, ie lower price charged from the consumer.
Of course, this might be offset by the upward movement of the demand-line (i.e. the increase of customers that came from advertising), depending on the form of the supply line. I tend to belive that the angle gives a, if not completely horizontal then in many cases, a fairly flat line.
In conclusion; no, consumers of a product doesn't subsidize information sources for other people. They might enable them to become cheaper but that is not the same thing.
Silly late adopters, I'm still using my 17xxxx nbr.
Now hold on to your hats. In five minutes we will have a new winner =)
Yes, this was my answer. Seems I wasn't loged in for some reason.
Well said. I know that if I had come up with an advanced theory such as this I'd never reveal it. Much better to keep it to myself and not lose the $10 encyclopedia.
It's come a long way since that.
Again, firefox has come a long way in this department as well. I'd say firefox is way more intuitive and much easier to grasp for the average user. Only drawback is the extensive use of the plug-in system.
Don't get me wrong, I love it. But seeing it from the average user it might be a make-or-break point. "Didn't I just download firefox?! What is this I have to get now and what is that strange box that I've never seen before?"
*hint* *hint*
"Considering the amazing success of Linux*, one can't help but wondering how long it will be before someone attempts to buy it."
Did that version of the question manage to show just how strange a question just was asked in the parent post? How ever it managed to get moderated up to "+5, Interesting" is simply beyond me.
*YES, thats right. I just wrote Linux and not GNU/Linux
If it's for zero grav, and not acctualy for landing on its feet, then wouldn't "air jets", ie pressure streams generated from compressed air, and a gyro or two be much more simple to generate?
IANALBIBKtWALL (I Am Not A Lawer But I've Been Known to Watch LA Law) but a few points strike me as important with regards to this reasoning.
First of, beeing a license, just because some part of it won't (hypothetically) hold up doesn't mean that the entire reasoning in the document falls down like a house of cards. If I give you a sandwich and tell you that you can "watch the sandwich, eat the sandwich, place the sandwich in orbit arround a celestial body; but never, never ever give the sandwitch to your mother" and it then turns out that the limits I've placed upon you are not legaly binding, then I'm not entirely certain that it means that I can have my sandwich back.
I seem to remember that I had some more points to bring up (mainly because I started of by saying "first of") but they slightly elude me now and as I said in the begining, they will just be speculations from a person not educated in neither the french nor the anglo-saxon, or any other, legal system.
I would try and come up with a witty responce to debunk what you just said but it would seem a number of people beat me to the main point.
Sure, with reasoning like that you win and I surrender unconditionaly. Marvelous technique of debating there. Ace of the retorical and logical classes where you?
As have been stated over and over again, the GPL gives rights, it does not remove them. In other words, if it is indeed non-valid, due to language related reasons or other, then the source is simply a document with copyright applied to it. No need to get all nervous and paranoid.
On a related note (and still OT) I'd be happy if someone implemented the 'smart folders' system that google uses for the email for bookmarks. So you are bookmarking a site on some C-programing, give it the tags "programing", "C" and "university".
How about "english separatists"?