my problem is that i expect that some user might follow up on a citation to wikipedia and any work that i did to verify the content that was on the page at the time that i read it is meaningless when applied to the state of the content when the reader follows my trail. so i may in my paper include the statement "the population of African Elephants has been declining throughout the 21st century [5]" where source 5 is a pointer to wikipedia/Elephants, and when the reader follows the link he finds "the population of African Elephants has tripled in the last 6 months." so now i risk contradicting the source that i cited for the statement, or do i just instead add a citation for whichever source that i used to verify wikipedia before i used that statement (which is hopefully more static)? should we cite the particular version of the document that we're citing in the same manner that one may specify an edition of a book reference?
Time to face it. Bush drew a line in the sand and said you are either with us or with the terrorists. The moonbats didn't need two full seconds to decide which side of the line they were going to stand on, and while at first it was more a case of simply being on the opposite side from Chimpy, they are starting to realize that Bush was right, and once on the side of the terrorists they might as well start swingin for their team. After all it was an easy enough slide, almost all of the left/msm are pro PLO and anti-semitic (even the jews in the media tend towards the left winger self hating jew variety), they hate America and western civilization with a passion equal to UBL himself although for totally different reasons and have zero moral restraints. Most of them spent the 60s through early 90s fighting passionately against the West in the service of the Soviets and when it comes to insane evil is UBL and Irans mad mullahs really worse masters/allies than the heirs of Stalin?
But they didn't make any laws. They simply stated that reporters are not above the law. Nothing new here, move along please.
a law *was made*, and the law now infringes on the freedom of the press. just because the law didn't infringe on the freedom of the press when it was made, doesn't mean that it can now do so. if the law has to apply equally to the press and its application on the press infringes on the first ammendment, than the law cannot be constitutional.
exactly, i value my own vision too much to click on a link and watch someone at SIGGRAPH dancing. at best it's the Elaine Dance, at worst...well, let's not think about it.
the support community grows at roughly the same rate as the developer community
the point that the grandparent was trying to make is that the support community doesn't grow as fast as the end-user community. the first people onto these projects are people that are really knowledgeable with computers and often are people that are looking for a "project" that they can pitch in on. as the software goes more and more mainstream and becomes easier to use, the community adds in lots more non-technical people who both need more support themselves and probably won't be able to provide support for others. that's the tipping point from "linux is for hobbyists" to "linux is easy enough for my mom to use", because adding a hobbyist potentially grows your support community and adding an uninformed user just increases the support load
With the right info on hand Ubuntu is a true gem of an OS
that's the rub though, distributions of Linux are primarily collections of software that was written by other people. it seems to me that the main work of making a distribution is collecting together those pieces that other people wrote, building an installation process, and documenting for the user how to use/navigate the collection that you've built (Ubuntu is even built on the work of the Debian distro, so even a lot of these tasks were done already by others). it seems like Ubuntu should be the ones fleshing things out the rest of the way, not O'Reilly.
I agree. I just find it interesting that it comes up here, and not in blockbuster. Perhaps it's because in the video store, you have to make more immediate decisions, or that there is a group participating in the decision. Or, as TFA states, maybe it's a paradox of choice issue, or a high-brow, low brow issue.
you go to Blockbuster and make the decision on what you want to watch tonight. Netflix on the other hand has you build a queue of movies that you want to watch "some day", and oftentimes you haven't edited the top of that list in a week when the movie at the top gets sent to you (esp. if the top few movies get jumped over because they're unavailable). it's a lot harder to guess what you might want to watch in the vaguely distant future, than what you might want to watch tonight.
in my experience, i tend to buy the movies that i often want to watch on a whim, and so if the movies that i have out from Netflix aren't what i want just now than i pull out a DVD that i own.
You want to make money? Find an acceptable product or well known name and shove it down America's throat. Instant cash. Examples: Mission Impossible 2, corporate boy bands with music written by teams of people, any media that follows a standard high selling formula, etc. Next up? Amazon studios presents their new movie... "A Revenue Stream We Hope to Tap."
actually, most of those items (MI:2 aside, that's just another example of the sequel-fest we're used to seeing in movies and games) are examples of taking something that's NOT by a well-known name (i.e. cheap!) and using your own promotional machine to make it well-known and get it sold. another example is Oprah's book club, which this Amazon model seems to mirror exactly
I have no time to look at impulse items... I'm too busy slamming my fist against the screen, trying to get the dammed thing to work.
that's why they need to have "impulse hammers" and "impulse guns" in the self-checkout line, the items that are chosen have to reflect the mood of the person in line
so they're supposed to perform a value-add service (installing and configuring linux) for free and sell their laptops for less than the volume leader? they might as well not add a warranty since they won't be in business long enough to have to honor it
if you don't like the genre that's one thing, but saying that Will Wright's game will be bad because Peter Molyneux's game wasn't what you expected is at least as speculative as the premise of this article predicting that Spore will be a cultural dynamo.
Well go to Amazon where the widescreen V for Vendetta or RV are each 16, and Akeelah and the Bee, She's the Man, Sentinel (I know, it's a range of good to crap but they're what Amazon has showing for new releases)
i think you mean a range of crap to crap:)
seriously though, 16-20 is not "slightly above 10", because a 60% to 100% increase is not a slight change. you don't have to sway my opinion, i buy tons of movies. i don't think you're going to sway the grandparent poster though, it sounds like he's made up his mind.
that link doesn't mention a throttling practice per se, it just says that higher priorities go to lower usage people :
These effects will not occur unless we are faced with limited inventory at your local distribution center or when the number of shipments to be processed by that distribution center on that day is exceeded. In our unlimited plans, we do not establish a monthly limit on the number of DVDs you can rent.
i rent 4/5 movies a week from Netflix also (i watch movies rather than subscribing to cable), and have not had problems except on a few occasions that are infrequent enough to be a result of ordinary postal service delays.
i guess redundant because they filmed that post as an episode of South Park (Ep 86, Season 6: "Simpsons Already Did It") :
Butters (as Professor Chaos) and General Disarray start to launch "Evil Plot 4-B", which is to blot out the sun with an 80 foot high by 50 foot wide giant shade. General Disarray informs him that they already did that on The Simpsons.
plan after plan had already been done on the Simpsons :
At the home of General Disarray, Professor Chaos arrives with the results of his latest scheme. He has removed the head from the statue in the town's square. The local news coverage reminds him that this same event occurred in a classic episode of the The Simpsons. ...
Professor Chaos lies out "Plan #123-D" (monorail) for General Disarray, who informs him "The Simpsons already did it in episode 204(sic)". The Simpsons have also already done his plans #124-A (web site gossip) and #129-E (buried angel) as well. ...
Professor Chaos is informed that The Simpsons have already done plans #127-C (soccer riot) and #125-E (shaken beer can). Discouraged, Professor Chaos decides he might just run away and join the circus, until he is informed "The Simpsons did it." ...
Having watched all 132 episodes (sic) of the The Simpsons, Professor Chaos is hit upon a scheme that they haven't already done, that is to replace the contents of a cherry with "yukky, sticky mayonnaise." General Disarray comments that The Simpsons' scheme would have been more clever. When they are ready to leave to execute this evil scheme an ad comes on for tonight's episode of The Simpsons in which Bart is going to replace the contents of a chocolate covered cherry with mayonnaise.
I'm not way off-track one of the purposes of a parking meter is the annoyance feature. Keeps a set of rich guys from pumping quarters in it all day long without any negative consequences for them.
In business, it's very important to be the "first mover", which means the fist company to deploy an innovative (I use the term loosely) idea.
that's interesting in light of Microsoft's past success as a second mover. 90% of the browser market as a very late mover, 90+% of the desktop OS market as a second mover, pretty nice share of the server OS market as a late mover, dominance in the office suite software market as a second mover ("who's Lotus?", "what's WordPerfect?"), and now making a decent play at the console gaming market as a late mover.
MS is second more than they're first. it may be very useful to be the first mover, but being able to avoid a lot of the first-to-market bumps and hurdles is also an advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
there's an entire line of commercials *by Apple* featuring a smug Mac user, so i'm not sure that they aren't asking for it.
my problem is that i expect that some user might follow up on a citation to wikipedia and any work that i did to verify the content that was on the page at the time that i read it is meaningless when applied to the state of the content when the reader follows my trail. so i may in my paper include the statement "the population of African Elephants has been declining throughout the 21st century [5]" where source 5 is a pointer to wikipedia/Elephants, and when the reader follows the link he finds "the population of African Elephants has tripled in the last 6 months." so now i risk contradicting the source that i cited for the statement, or do i just instead add a citation for whichever source that i used to verify wikipedia before i used that statement (which is hopefully more static)? should we cite the particular version of the document that we're citing in the same manner that one may specify an edition of a book reference?
exactly, i value my own vision too much to click on a link and watch someone at SIGGRAPH dancing. at best it's the Elaine Dance, at worst...well, let's not think about it.
this sounds like a job for Superman!
exactly, think of the models people! starving models need our help
so they're supposed to perform a value-add service (installing and configuring linux) for free and sell their laptops for less than the volume leader? they might as well not add a warranty since they won't be in business long enough to have to honor it
if you don't like the genre that's one thing, but saying that Will Wright's game will be bad because Peter Molyneux's game wasn't what you expected is at least as speculative as the premise of this article predicting that Spore will be a cultural dynamo.
when your girlfriend sees this joke, something else is gonna be the color of bluetooth
seriously though, 16-20 is not "slightly above 10", because a 60% to 100% increase is not a slight change. you don't have to sway my opinion, i buy tons of movies. i don't think you're going to sway the grandparent poster though, it sounds like he's made up his mind.
you call it looting, i call it a 500 person group negotiating a 100% discount. it's all a matter of degree
do they roll up the paddy-wagon everytime you get a free razor in the mail?