Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Oct 2010 16:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 445601
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-14
You can't define things that are variable over time and include them in a classification system, unless you want to update the classifications every couple of months. That would render it pretty much worthless as you'd have to make a note of what the definitions were back when some one cited a statistic that used the definition.
All of your classifications are so dependent on things that could change tomorrow. If you can develop on the device.... If you can perform action A on it without the use of another device... Its like piece wise defining a sine wave... There is probably a better way to do it without having so many conditions to examine. I don't mean to knock down everything you are suggesting, but I think you need to zoom out and take a wider look at the situation as others seem to be on a more sensible track.