"Robert Duffy, Intel's online communities strategist, added that some of the impetus behind creating the community was to boost online traffic to Intel."
So maybe the question becomes, should those who contribute more (I don't know what the threshold would be) be required to reveal more personal identification details in order to ensure some level of transparency? This might apply to simple misinformation, but not when previous edits are actually removed from the database. In the first case, their data loses credibility, but in this case even their metadata can't be trusted. It's much worse.
The reason wikipedia works despite rogue users is the odds that vandalism will be corrected because the whole world is watching. That model can't compensate for mischief by administrators with direct database access.
SSH would be the internet's killer app, except it's not *COOL*. Make the shell cool, and everything else will follow. The browser of the future is just PuTTY with widgets instead of characters, and [insert fancy immersive web experience] instead of bash.
Except, in order to lure people from the existing web, you either need a static site begging people to download, install and convert to your new app (as if Google Earth is that much more useful than Google Maps) or to be so backwards-compatible with http that browsers can implement it themselves. Not to mention downgradeable, so for every new fancy site you'd better have ajax/flash or even static html equivalents. Thus, you haven't usurped the web browser - you have made it grow. Bwahaha.
I got tired of fixing the same old problems every time I visited my parents, so I sat down and asked exactly what things they need the computer to do. I reinstalled Windows XP, set optimum preferences for everything then password-locked the admin account and now they can only use an unprivileged user account, whose preferences are all borrowed from "all users". It is impossible (save for bugs in the OS, natch) for them or any malware to screw up the machine, and if by chance they catch malicious software that fucks up userspace (not as likely since they'd have to download it themselves) a new user account is easy to make.
My mom complained once when she bought a new printer herself and couldn't install it without help, but I told her, "isn't this much better than it used to be? When you couldn't even go online without porn popping up?" Fortunately, I always use passwords that look like gobbledy-gook, so even when I told her what to type over the phone, she didn't remember it.
Slashdot Mirror
statistics != rule
They're inventing universal translators, tricorders and mind melds.
Acer can't guarantee the functioning of old software, because they were just experimenting.
"Robert Duffy, Intel's online communities strategist, added that some of the impetus behind creating the community was to boost online traffic to Intel."
... as long as Majel Barrett still plays Nurse Chapel!
(He took her job as first officer, so it's only fair.)
Livejournal alone has 3.4 million users [livejournal.com]. This and many other social networks can be called blogs.
The reason wikipedia works despite rogue users is the odds that vandalism will be corrected because the whole world is watching. That model can't compensate for mischief by administrators with direct database access.
It's a neologismification.
SSH would be the internet's killer app, except it's not *COOL*. Make the shell cool, and everything else will follow. The browser of the future is just PuTTY with widgets instead of characters, and [insert fancy immersive web experience] instead of bash.
Except, in order to lure people from the existing web, you either need a static site begging people to download, install and convert to your new app (as if Google Earth is that much more useful than Google Maps) or to be so backwards-compatible with http that browsers can implement it themselves. Not to mention downgradeable, so for every new fancy site you'd better have ajax/flash or even static html equivalents. Thus, you haven't usurped the web browser - you have made it grow. Bwahaha.
I got tired of fixing the same old problems every time I visited my parents, so I sat down and asked exactly what things they need the computer to do. I reinstalled Windows XP, set optimum preferences for everything then password-locked the admin account and now they can only use an unprivileged user account, whose preferences are all borrowed from "all users". It is impossible (save for bugs in the OS, natch) for them or any malware to screw up the machine, and if by chance they catch malicious software that fucks up userspace (not as likely since they'd have to download it themselves) a new user account is easy to make.
My mom complained once when she bought a new printer herself and couldn't install it without help, but I told her, "isn't this much better than it used to be? When you couldn't even go online without porn popping up?" Fortunately, I always use passwords that look like gobbledy-gook, so even when I told her what to type over the phone, she didn't remember it.