revised

If the revised article is correct and the BOM is $20.19 then there is a fairly large markup to $199.

Relativity for instance did not find that Newtonian mechanics was wrong, it simply revised it under pathological cases.

However, the your link says Edition 2005 while the pdfs linked to by the posted page say Revised Edition 2013.

Re-post, but has been significantly revised and 1.0.0 proper has been released since then.

I'm glad the title was revised again because the previous version was practically a contradiction in terms.

If you meant to say that the limits should be revised, may I suggest using wording that actually carries that meaning?

Microsoft traditionally releases a revised edition within a year or so, and so I intend to wait for this revision before upgrading.

Edit: It appears roghummal has significantly revised his comment since I finished my reply.

Maybe they have a different slant on the whole topic, like the difference between reading The Little Schemer and the Revised Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme.

So the technical definition is revised to exclude that.

The Algol68 Revised Report came out while I was in grad school.

Who cares whether the NYT revised the article?

If it's front page or similar Inwould not be surprised to see figures revised upwards significantly - once off the beaten track of even major sites the number of "let this one slide" decisions spikes a lot.

> If it's front page or similar Inwould not be surprised to see figures revised upwards significantly - once off the beaten track of even major sites the number of "let this one slide" decisions spikes a lot.

And if anything it's the opposite of "internet journalism"; it's part of an age-old newspaper tradition of adding the revised story into exactly the same slot in between print runs rather than the internet approach of "there's no daily space constraint; let's put Pao's background and court case in another follow-on article and leave the old one alone.