Not all of them.

Was that so difficult? Disclaimer: When my grandfathered unlimited goes away, so do I. Also, what the shit is with your illogical, all-caps emphases?

Your memory serves incorrectly. I am old head, this account's email is the only one I remembered after a 3 year hiatus.

I don't recall reddit's founding to be a response to anything done here on /. - I believe they were trying to do what digg and StumbleUpon were going for, just effectively and dynamically, with enough in the front-end that you can see response in real time. They succeeded, obviously.

Although the firehose was a relatively new form of moderation, /. has always had editors deciding what hits the front page, based on user response, and thus your RSS feed, with the result being the time-to-publish being subtantially higher or more delayed [than other aggregating sites that don't need a mod's stamp-of-approval] as a result. It's an aggregating news site with mods deciding what hits the front page - /. does not (historically, although the powers that be try to do something like the /.TV thing going on now, every now and then) provide much Original Content. This is not a bad thing, IMO - but means you wait an extra ~24-72 hours over a multitude of other sites. It's relatively longer, now that CmdrTaco no longer runs the show, but still effectively the same.

**Seeing your response to yourself now. I believe that to be true.

/. effectively aggregates a lot of sites, via user moderation, in the same way that reddit does. It is just much slower, because editors (who sometimes do better than other times). It's always been that way - I've heard this thousands of times on /. - regarding TheVerge, for Engdaget, for Kokaku and perhaps the entire gawker blogging umbrella, for ThisIsMyNext before Topolsky moved, for every site, ever, that tries to post OC. This is not what /. does.

Ratatouille indicates otherwise.

No it's not. When you're a company the size of Amazon, you have clout to introduce new methods of advertising. I can see why you would call it an upsell, but you're not really moving a purchase away from one product and up to another... just advertising the products as they are introduced in whatever content you are consuming.

I don't partake, but I am aware that Amazon serves up shows and movies over the net. The amount of paperwork they had to file and the number of agreements they've signed with Hollywood to make this happen (as with any content provider) is probably staggering. What's one more peice of paper in the agreement stating that, in addition to all the other advertising Hollywood funnels to Amazon, we're going to throw one more bit on top. When actor.1 goes across the screen and you see his sunglasses, think to yourself, "damn that's nice!" and blamo, an ad is on your page because you're not watching the movie in fullscreen (or maybe you are, as in my experience advertising only evolves to become more invasive), is that going to be effective and patent-worthy? I think yes - I would have patented this very idea years ago if I had the connections and resources and gumption (I'm a lazy bastard).

FTFA:

Moron.

It doesn't really explain the methods he used to develop his dip-stick lithmus sensor test thing. I would submit that his solution encompasses both - the scientific method established his hypothesis (it should be easy to test for mesothelin in blood/urine) and engineering to create a repeatable, testable solution to the problem. I think some more science is probably present in the indicators present on the stick, where you need to develop a flag while controlling for everything else present in blood or urine.

My guess is he won out over the other contestants due, in no small part, to the cohesive solution involving both science and engineering, where the runner-ups focused on one or the other (micro-sifting search engine: engineering - quantum theory regarding data transmission via entanglement: physical sciences).

The article is really only about the one of them. The summary can refer to both of them and only explain the one it is about, while still being sufficient. It really is kind of pedentic, IMO. If you want to know more about the error-correcting code (that the article is not about), you will click the article and discover the one-liner dedicated to explaning why this article is not about it, regardless.

A long, well-written statement abstractly disagreeing with mine does not make a fact.

No, it really isn't... it's just an introductive talking point to get you thinking about the intricacies of applying something like "network coding," which involves a lot more than a relationship with "error-correcting coding." There are plenty of other factors that preclude a successful application of "network coding," one of which happens to be error-correcting coding.

This isn't a question of the article, or the summary - thus my point stands that you did not comprehend what it was that was being stated. CSMA/CD is basically assumed to be present on a dynamically routed network, by any self-respecting geek that is going to be interested in this subject.

My favorite bit about the Oceanus watches (excepting that they're Casio, which you know, in their more engineered designs, is going to outlive you) is that you get the sapphire crystal for generally under the 4 digit mark. This is an awesome value, and the same reason one of the 5-dial Oceanus watches will be my next. I'll probably skip the Ti this time around - my current Citizen clasp is Ti and scratches on wood... nice metal, not easy to maintain a polish though. The Citizen can be my beater.

First post ever, almost 3mil UID, MS shills off the charts lately, etc.

you fed the troll, now others who peruse at reasonable karma levels will see this drivel...

At least this study has a sample size bigger than one professor.

Okay I'm just going ahead and apologize for not noticing your "summary refers to" bit in your paragraph.

But I think my point still stands - the summary is sufficient for the purposes of summarizing the article.

This is, after all, extremelly important.

Seriously though, it's not "error-correcting coding" ... which implies you did not comprehend the summary, nor the article. This is about testing capacity and is more along the lines of implementing something to expound upon dynamic routing. Which induces a clusterfuck of brainthink along the lines of "so we're buying bandwidth to supplement bandwidth that we should have put there, but maybe here" and so on and so forth. There's not a whole lot more to read into except for hypotheticals (being revisited).

As a mid level cubie dweller with temper tantrums, I will forward your solicitation to my manager. There will be strippers at the convention... right?

I guess you don't work in PR. I think a majority of readers will respond with thoughts somewhere along the lines of "figures." Relatively speaking, the conditions aren't bad. Americans spouting their mouths off about how awful "we" treat these Chinese people, as if that were our responsibility... they will continue to have a negative impact (and thus be a focus for PR's spending, regardless of how redundant the investments may seem to be) until the magnifying glass is off Apple's chapped ass.

Being one of the most popular tech companies with a liberal profit margin, you can bet this won't be the last recourse, unless something drastic happens and nobody cares anymore. In the mean time and outside the magnifying glass, the cost is offset because decisions like this are just what they need to convince another couple hundred school districts to purchase iPads.