I am thrilled to have received my PDF copy of Bitcoin Magazine, but very disappointed that the article The Bulls and the Bears: Twelve Bitcoin Hits and Eight Spectacular Misses has been revised to now be The Bulls and the Bears: Eleven Bitcoin Hits and Nine Spectacular Misses. And the text about Bitcoinica has been rewritten to describe its failure rather than its success, noted "updated July 2012".
What's wrong with leaving the original version of the magazine intact? The magazine was accurate as possible at the time it was published, there is no reason it needs to be revised. Bitcoinica crashed and burned after the magazine was published.
I'm sadden to read this if that's the case.
On a lighter side, did the ink smudge while reading the
Pretty
Dumb
Fuckup copy?
Were any grammatical errors--albeit few--corrected? If not, then why not?
Being from Indian is not the only reason I believe Matthew is Amish. He's rucky I'm busy with other ongoing investigations, otherwise this faux pas would have been looked into.
As they say: "Don't blame the mirror for your ugly face". Bitcoin Magazine just reflects reality. Electronic version was published recently and there is no good reason to list Bitcoinica as a huge success now.
Next time we will try to reduce the wait between print and digital editions to reduce chances of the bitcoin winners to become loser meanwhile.
Yes there is a good reason, many of them in fact: archival purposes. Academic purposes. Research purposes. When most publications make a mistake or find out something pertinent after the fact, they add a footnote to the bottom clarifying it. They don't simply cut a new revision of the same issue with the story changed.
The PDF file format offers a fantastic mechanism for adding callout annotations. Use that feature to note issue #1. Address Bitcoinica's fall in issue #2.
I'll have to agree here. Sorry, Bitcoin Magazine team.
~Bruno~
