He developed his book out on the open; the book in progress is on that site. Now it is finished it is printed.
My first Linux install was also in 1998. At that time I couldn't afford good hardware and Windows barely worked on my computer: it crashed regularly an I couldn't get my sound card working. Installing Linux wasn't easy but once finished it worked without crashing. Enabling sound took me some months tinkering with compiling the kernel and trying tips and tricks from the Linux manuals. Eventually I succeeded: my computer was working flawlessly.
Some time later I bought a CD-writer and, as stated in the manual of the drive, I installed the drivers for Windows to get the drive up and running. It wasn't a success. Somehow I wasn't able to burn a CD-ROM and finish the disk. I tried disc after disc -- those were quite expensive at that time -- and almost all became part of my collection of coasters.
Of course, having had some success with Linux in the past, I started to get my CD-writer running on Linux. It turned out to be easy. Since then I am using Linux.
Your Dutch sentence and corresponding translation aren't that compatible after all:
Ik lijk het huis. means ``I dead body the house'' ???
I like the house. translated to Dutch as ``I houd van het huis..
I've always wondered about that myself too. I thought I was the only one translating BS to bull shit. But then the bachelor-master structure was introduced only a couple of years back here in Europe and the abbreviation BS was already taken
On top of that, as the bachelor degree didn't exist before, it has almost no value. Who in his right mind would call himself a bachelor of science (or arts, for that matter)? You would be admitting you failed your academic education.
A nice idea indeed! I think it would only work if there is a huge amount of advertisers so that advertisements are indeed random and no large corporations get a large share of the total number of advertisements.
If we assume that a large company, like Microsoft, Sony, GM, etc. buys a substantial part of the advertisements (>=1%). Chances are you will be often confronted with the advertisements of this large company and as a result you (probably unconscious) are influences, conditioned to prefer, know, choose for this company or product.
Now, you will say that that is exactly what happens in the real world and you don't have a problem with that either. However, you came to wikipedia to get some objective information, not to be conditioned for some company or product.
For every `innocent' example you can give, I'm certain an `unwanted' example can be found.
For example: In a lemma about computer memory is an ad for one producer of computer memory. The lemma and the ad are only slightly related but a connection is made and chances are some people will be influenced by it. Is that bad?
Maybe not, but then imagine advertisements attached to all lemma's. Whatever you are looking for, there are also some relevant advertisements. Are you sure you aren't influenced by them? Do you want these advertisements by medical topics, by topics targeting children, by controversial topics , etc.?
Furthermore, why do you think corporations want to advertise on wikipedia? Because they want to subsidize this nice project?
There is another worry: advertising works. So if you are looking for some medical information do you want to be confronted with context specific advertisements? Do you want to be influenced by the medicine the advertisement is offering? Or do you only want ``objective'' information you then can take to your doctor?
There is only so much space for advertisement: who decides which product, corporation or organization is advertised on a particular wikipedia page? We can't put advertisements from all competitors, unfortunately.
And what about our children? Do we want to confront our children with advertisements when they are looking for information? Are we sure they aren't influenced by these advertisements?
The longer I think about this idea, the more aversion I have against it.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759