What? You gave the corporations a pass on all of the corrupt lobbying that they do. That's what I called you out on. I never absolved anyone of any guilt.
These people and the corporations they represent aren't following the rules of society. They're rewriting the rules of society by lobbying the corrupt individuals who hold the power to do so. Yes, you may say that the system is broken, and it very much is, but arguing innocence because the system that these people abuse is already broken, that's not going to stand up to scrutiny. It wouldn't be broken if people like these weren't around.
What gives me the idea that it's "negative" adaptation?
The parent that I replied to specifically addressed the people who are unhappy about the changes, so we're talking about that group of people. I'm not sure you can make a case that the changes are positive for the people who don't like them.
So opinion is opinion? How remarkably insightful. "Negative" adaptation in this context obviously means adaptation in a manner that is generally thought to be negative.
The population at large is a different group from the people who actively complain about the state of the gaming business. In this discussion, we're talking about the latter.
I suppose it makes sense that people who don't read TFA they're commenting on won't read TFP they're replying to.
That still doesn't change the fact that it's a direct result of it, and people actually demanded the adaption.
Fair enough. From now on, I'll come to your house every day and hit you in the face. When you demand that I stop being unreasonable, I'll show up every other day and kick you in the crotch instead, and then lecture you on how the status quo is a direct result of your complaints.
People didn't demand negative adaptation. People demanded positive adaptation. You're really straining to be insightful if you're trying to claim that people asked to have it worse.
It just means that the never-ending back and forth with regards to notability, sources and other policy will be legally protected, and impossible to end. Wikipedia couldn't function as an entity if the circlejerk of administrators and reach-around editors couldn't force through their interpretation of policy du jour.
I think the people who disagree with Comcast's abusive monopolies and the contempt they show towards their customers care that it was part of a merger deal, and not corporate philanthropy.
The CRTC's framework also says traffic shaping only should be used as a last resort to deal with network congestion and encourages companies to use "economic measures," such as data caps, to manage demand.
Or, they could, you know, invest in their networks and bring them into the 21st century. It's entirely possible to operate a profitable ISP at lower prices without any kind of throttling or data caps, and without any kind of proxies, BRAS systems, and whatever other manner of junk they put between your loop and the Internet. They just don't want to stop overselling and underdelivering, to paraphrase contemporary internetworking parlance.
To be fair to the Steam platform, the launch time for me is down to just about five seconds, and the application has been consistently and perfectly responsive since they pushed out the latest round of updates. It's a massive improvement from the minute-long time from execution to a somewhat functional state that it featured just a year ago.
I suppose it's just a coincidence that availability of the hardware necessary produce and effectively market the newer generations of smartphones coincided with the launch of the original iPhone, and that it's Apple that's responsible for the technological evolution of mobile phones because they were amongst the first to market devices that take advantage of it?
"Fuck the free market?" No. It's the government saying "all correspondence must be in format X." That's pretty much how things have worked since the dawn of bureaucracy.
I got the gist of it, but I think it's short the necessary car analogies to really make it click. In any case, I'm impressed with the prompt and thorough reply. You certainly follow through on your claims.
You know, most of the energy sources we use today are sources that we haven't produced. We have extracted them, combined them, or chemically altered them, precisely because of the energy costs associated with outright producing them. If there's a way to harvest anti-matter without producing it, just as we have with all of our other energy sources, then it may well become a viable energy source one day.
If you think an article about a given manufacturer doesn't belong on Wikipedia according to your interpretation of the notability policy, take the article to AFD.
Yeah, sure. I like nothing more than to spend my free time navigating a bureaucracy of cubicle emperors, each with their own differing interpretation of the same policy, over the course of several days or even weeks, just so that I *might* get to edit a free encyclopedia without compensation.
Going through a list of other articles that also don't adhere to the policy that was used to reject my content, and trying to get them deleted, that's the next best thing.
Imagine if policy dorks on Wikipedia were actually required to follow up on their "rulings" by enforcing them across all other applicable articles. Then it wouldn't just be a matter of writing an angry and very verbose "no" on a discussion page, and the selective enforcement of policy would be much less of an issue.
This will always be a problem as long as Wikipedia accommodates the type of person content to sit around and try to call the shots without taking any action or having any responsibility.
You're confusing being a dick with being legitimately authoritarian. Many of the admins are actual dicks, people who'll go to lengths to have things done their way, rather than the "right" way, and take out as many dissenting individuals as they can in the process. That's why Wikipedia is the mess of inconsistent enforcement and edge case policy that it is.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's perfectly fine to skip in line as long as you've paid the person in charge to let you do it? Nothing wrong with that?
What? You gave the corporations a pass on all of the corrupt lobbying that they do. That's what I called you out on. I never absolved anyone of any guilt.
These people and the corporations they represent aren't following the rules of society. They're rewriting the rules of society by lobbying the corrupt individuals who hold the power to do so. Yes, you may say that the system is broken, and it very much is, but arguing innocence because the system that these people abuse is already broken, that's not going to stand up to scrutiny. It wouldn't be broken if people like these weren't around.
There are several dictionaries available on the Internet that are free to use.
What gives me the idea that it's "negative" adaptation?
The parent that I replied to specifically addressed the people who are unhappy about the changes, so we're talking about that group of people. I'm not sure you can make a case that the changes are positive for the people who don't like them.
So opinion is opinion? How remarkably insightful. "Negative" adaptation in this context obviously means adaptation in a manner that is generally thought to be negative.
The population at large is a different group from the people who actively complain about the state of the gaming business. In this discussion, we're talking about the latter.
I suppose it makes sense that people who don't read TFA they're commenting on won't read TFP they're replying to.
Which part of that confused you?
Fair enough. From now on, I'll come to your house every day and hit you in the face. When you demand that I stop being unreasonable, I'll show up every other day and kick you in the crotch instead, and then lecture you on how the status quo is a direct result of your complaints.
Stop being disingenuous.
People didn't demand negative adaptation. People demanded positive adaptation. You're really straining to be insightful if you're trying to claim that people asked to have it worse.
It just means that the never-ending back and forth with regards to notability, sources and other policy will be legally protected, and impossible to end. Wikipedia couldn't function as an entity if the circlejerk of administrators and reach-around editors couldn't force through their interpretation of policy du jour.
I think the people who disagree with Comcast's abusive monopolies and the contempt they show towards their customers care that it was part of a merger deal, and not corporate philanthropy.
Or, they could, you know, invest in their networks and bring them into the 21st century. It's entirely possible to operate a profitable ISP at lower prices without any kind of throttling or data caps, and without any kind of proxies, BRAS systems, and whatever other manner of junk they put between your loop and the Internet. They just don't want to stop overselling and underdelivering, to paraphrase contemporary internetworking parlance.
If only there was some kind of transmission protocol that could normalise transfer rates to fit the net path throughput.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any service provider that doesn't oversubscribe some part of their network.
To be fair to the Steam platform, the launch time for me is down to just about five seconds, and the application has been consistently and perfectly responsive since they pushed out the latest round of updates. It's a massive improvement from the minute-long time from execution to a somewhat functional state that it featured just a year ago.
So what you're saying is that bugs can be fixed, and functionality can be added to software over time?
I suppose it's just a coincidence that availability of the hardware necessary produce and effectively market the newer generations of smartphones coincided with the launch of the original iPhone, and that it's Apple that's responsible for the technological evolution of mobile phones because they were amongst the first to market devices that take advantage of it?
Please.
"Fuck the free market?" No. It's the government saying "all correspondence must be in format X." That's pretty much how things have worked since the dawn of bureaucracy.
I got the gist of it, but I think it's short the necessary car analogies to really make it click. In any case, I'm impressed with the prompt and thorough reply. You certainly follow through on your claims.
What happens when DNA breaks?
You know, most of the energy sources we use today are sources that we haven't produced. We have extracted them, combined them, or chemically altered them, precisely because of the energy costs associated with outright producing them. If there's a way to harvest anti-matter without producing it, just as we have with all of our other energy sources, then it may well become a viable energy source one day.
Apparently it's a big deal to Jimmy Wales, which is why I'm commenting.
No need to get your panties in a twist.
Yeah, sure. I like nothing more than to spend my free time navigating a bureaucracy of cubicle emperors, each with their own differing interpretation of the same policy, over the course of several days or even weeks, just so that I *might* get to edit a free encyclopedia without compensation.
Going through a list of other articles that also don't adhere to the policy that was used to reject my content, and trying to get them deleted, that's the next best thing.
Imagine if policy dorks on Wikipedia were actually required to follow up on their "rulings" by enforcing them across all other applicable articles. Then it wouldn't just be a matter of writing an angry and very verbose "no" on a discussion page, and the selective enforcement of policy would be much less of an issue.
This will always be a problem as long as Wikipedia accommodates the type of person content to sit around and try to call the shots without taking any action or having any responsibility.
You're confusing being a dick with being legitimately authoritarian. Many of the admins are actual dicks, people who'll go to lengths to have things done their way, rather than the "right" way, and take out as many dissenting individuals as they can in the process. That's why Wikipedia is the mess of inconsistent enforcement and edge case policy that it is.