From Google's "about" page for their Books Ngram Viewer lab: "Why does the word 'Internet" occur before 1950?"
AFAIK, Google Books doesn't do the sort of methodical OCR clean-up that Project Gutenberg does, so a lot of Google's digitized books have a a fair number of errors. It'd be funny to see what kind of blips this might creates in our extracted cultural history!
Hey, stop talking about me!
TechCrunch had a really good post a few days ago about carriers exploiting the openness of Android. Worth a read.
Clearly anything having to do with BP is cursed to fail.
The problem is that the class seems directed toward zombie-related works of literature (I use the term loosely) and film. What we need is a class that helps prepare students for the coming zombie apocalypse.
Creativity points, though, for coming up with a name whose acronym gives the Greek spelling "Ikaros". I've always hated Latinized spellings or names for Greek mythological characters.
though DAT never gained popularity at home, it was wildly successful with professional audio engineers throughout the 90's. I'd mark that as a 'plus' in Sony's book.
True, but that's not nearly the size market that the audio listener crowd is. Sony also has dominated the professional video market with Betacam (very similar to Betamax, with nearly identical cassettes but better resolution and quality), and they seem to still dominate this market with HDCam cassettes. But despite the higher margins, I imagine this is still a much smaller market than consumer markets, with lower potential profits.
By a parallel argument, I could point at the vast litany of failed dot-com enterprises and conclude that "Internet entrepreneurial ventures can't survive, much less grow and create successful websites."
The point is We're not really concerned with the average outcome here. If the bottom 99% of FOSS projects are failures and the top 1% are unmitigated successes, we can't really characterize FOSS as 99% fail.
Yeah, TFA reminds me of a discussion I've had more than once with a friend of mine. Whenever he and I disagree on whether something is good in a game (example: CoD 4's hardcore mode), he'll usually defend it on the basis of "it's more realistic". My point to him, every time, is so what? It's not fun, and the goal isn't to be realistic, it's to be fun.
It would be extremely realistic if the game destroyed itself the first time you died, but people would be furious. No one actually wants a realistic game, although they might say they do. What they want is a game which has realistic elements which make it more fun. But most gamers don't think this through, so they think they want realism, when they would actually hate it.
Can you cite some specific examples of this?
http://thomas.gov/robots.txt:
User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow:
Crawl-Delay: 2
User-agent: Slurp
Disallow:
Crawl-Delay: 2
User-agent: Ultraseek
Disallow:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
If you include insulation as an advance in efficiency, you can probably get rid of most of that 5 pm air conditioning spike.
Of course, I don't think the haves can conserve anywhere near fast enough to offset new use by the have nots, so I certainly see the need for increased production.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android