I actually said 'hurt' as a way of tempering my argument to seem less distorted. Diillusioned would be a better word i suppose. I had a rosy colored view of wikipedia as an index of flat facts, passionless. I had thought in the future that wikipedia could expand to include trusted, encyclopedia grade articles that could be used as sources and cited. It is now very clear that cannot come to be.
I had no idea that wikipedia had so little integrity. It is one thing to not publish something, it is altogether another to distort facts and repeatedly alter the truth for an agenda.
The DTV transition is a bad example. Televisions didnt lose their ability to receive a signal and display images, its simply the signal was altered, and old sets are easily modified to conform to the new signal. Not the same at all.
ITs not that I want to be out in the streets calling for the admins heads. But I am highly disappointed that something that likens itself to an encyclopedia would distort facts, regardless of reason. I dont think the admins should be making policy of this nature at all. Their concerns should be 'is it fact or not' Not that I want the reporter to die, but wikipedia should not be suppressing public knowledge for any reason. It was known, reported as fact, that should have been the end of it as far as wikipedia was concerned. If I had to sum it up, im terribly disappointed (hurt) that even a repository of true facts will be called upon to lie from time to time. Unacceptable.
No matter what you call it, Wikipedia lied about facts and went about removing anything that went against that. Facts are facts, the reporter was obviously notable enough before the kidnapping to have a wikipedia page, the fact that he was kidnapped is relevant and should be beyond wikipedia's purview to alter.
Two things really stick out out me in this story.
#1, news sources would almost never do this for a non-journalist
#2 Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of suppressing indisputable facts for anyone.
This is a VERY slippery slope you are on and I for one do NOT find that wikipedia should be in the suppression of information business, even temporarily. It goes very much against the grain of what many view wikipedia to be. Wikipedia is very much a social network and would do well not to undermine people's confidence in it, since WE provide the content.
He was a 'political' prisoner of the Taliban, lies were actively purported to achieve an end. Active omission of facts is a lie and is unacceptable from a source of information that views itself as factual. Wikipedia should have absolutely no interest in a story beyond the facts presented.
You dont censor the truth in this manner. I am VERY disappointed in wikipedia's stance on this. They should be COMPLETELY impartial. Either you represent facts or you have interests, choose wisely wikipedia. I had no idea that the people who run wikipedia actively changed stories for political ends.
Apple holds NO monopolies of ANY kind, your argument fails.
Its amazing how people forget the order and timing of the events in question. When looking at the timeline, there is NO DOUBT Microsoft abused its monopoly in the browser space. Microsoft was VERY late to the browser games, and almost missed the internet entirely.
Apple doesnt have a MONOPOLY. That the part of the argument you are forgetting. MS used its MONOPOLY in Operating Systems to stifle the browser segment, which at the time, were still thought of as a pay product. And to avoid being told to take it out, they claimed it was integral to the OS, and COULDNT be removed. Which made every geek in the world roll his eyes in disbelief.
These people really are insane. They wont be happy until they can charge us every time an IP protected thought crosses our brain. The idea that IP is charged 'per brain' as it were, is slowly coming to be. No more sharing with friends, that would be illegal!
IM sorry, but its really hard to respect anything this guy says. IMHO, he got really lucky with Facebook, and he simply doesnt have that much intellectual capital.
Since when do we listen to manufacturer's claims? You take the new hardware, stress test it with your custom software, record results, plan servers accordingly. How hard is it really to commission a server design that meets your needs and then QA some prototypes?
Your comment needs some clarification. Since we are talking about U.S. patent law, ill stay in that region. In the U.S. there is special blank CD media made for recording music onto CDs using STANDALONE CD recorders. Blank CDs labeled specifically 'for music' have the royalties you describe above attached to it. In Canada, its as you describe.
Couldnt we store up energy in the wind turbines using a gravity method. Something like when there is wind some of the energy is used to pump [matter] to a higher kinetic state and then release it against a electricity generating turbine to maintain a constant rate.
Couldnt you have saved a copy of the original on your computer? Would you have the same argument if you HAD purchased the paper but then were careless and forgot where you put it? Thats exactly what happened here. You HAD a copy of the original article, but you were careless and misplaced/failed to save it.
This is part of the entire argument of net vs books that irritates me. Its not one or the other. They are both a means to an end
I dont underestimate good, structured training material. That doesnt mean I have to print and bind it for it to have value. The internet and books are a means to an end, and the benefits of digitized data far outweigh the physical in most cases. Also, a computer can generally render information into physical form trivially.
To spell it out, the sentiment of my statement is that knowledge on the internet is infinitely more flexible then printed material. When properly vetted and indexed, information on the internet will reach more minds then it EVER would have solely in book form.
All this being said, I DO love books. I have a lovely red leather bound LOTR trilogy tome I read from time to time.
Just wanted to add that while the signal to noise ratio my be high, the signal is so incredibly strong that the noise is easy to filter out.
I could break down your arguments by saying things like, "Why rely solely on a book? If so inclined I could probably contact a few reputable PERL devs online and get real feedback and samples."
Books are great and have their place, but they pale very quickly when compared to the possibilities the internet offers.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually said 'hurt' as a way of tempering my argument to seem less distorted. Diillusioned would be a better word i suppose. I had a rosy colored view of wikipedia as an index of flat facts, passionless. I had thought in the future that wikipedia could expand to include trusted, encyclopedia grade articles that could be used as sources and cited. It is now very clear that cannot come to be.
I had no idea that wikipedia had so little integrity. It is one thing to not publish something, it is altogether another to distort facts and repeatedly alter the truth for an agenda.
The DTV transition is a bad example. Televisions didnt lose their ability to receive a signal and display images, its simply the signal was altered, and old sets are easily modified to conform to the new signal. Not the same at all.
I HAVE to throw away my old computers and parts or I will be forced to put them to work in some manner.
ITs not that I want to be out in the streets calling for the admins heads. But I am highly disappointed that something that likens itself to an encyclopedia would distort facts, regardless of reason. I dont think the admins should be making policy of this nature at all. Their concerns should be 'is it fact or not' Not that I want the reporter to die, but wikipedia should not be suppressing public knowledge for any reason. It was known, reported as fact, that should have been the end of it as far as wikipedia was concerned. If I had to sum it up, im terribly disappointed (hurt) that even a repository of true facts will be called upon to lie from time to time. Unacceptable.
A rose by any other name.....
No matter what you call it, Wikipedia lied about facts and went about removing anything that went against that. Facts are facts, the reporter was obviously notable enough before the kidnapping to have a wikipedia page, the fact that he was kidnapped is relevant and should be beyond wikipedia's purview to alter.
Two things really stick out out me in this story.
#1, news sources would almost never do this for a non-journalist
#2 Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of suppressing indisputable facts for anyone.
SO stick your head in the sand because the big boys are ACTIVELY suppressing a story? good plan.....
This is a VERY slippery slope you are on and I for one do NOT find that wikipedia should be in the suppression of information business, even temporarily. It goes very much against the grain of what many view wikipedia to be. Wikipedia is very much a social network and would do well not to undermine people's confidence in it, since WE provide the content.
He was a 'political' prisoner of the Taliban, lies were actively purported to achieve an end. Active omission of facts is a lie and is unacceptable from a source of information that views itself as factual. Wikipedia should have absolutely no interest in a story beyond the facts presented.
You dont censor the truth in this manner. I am VERY disappointed in wikipedia's stance on this. They should be COMPLETELY impartial. Either you represent facts or you have interests, choose wisely wikipedia. I had no idea that the people who run wikipedia actively changed stories for political ends.
Apple holds NO monopolies of ANY kind, your argument fails.
Its amazing how people forget the order and timing of the events in question. When looking at the timeline, there is NO DOUBT Microsoft abused its monopoly in the browser space. Microsoft was VERY late to the browser games, and almost missed the internet entirely.
What version of Office does THAT?
Isnt that 'big' in relation to its competitors.... context is everything.
Apple doesnt have a MONOPOLY. That the part of the argument you are forgetting. MS used its MONOPOLY in Operating Systems to stifle the browser segment, which at the time, were still thought of as a pay product. And to avoid being told to take it out, they claimed it was integral to the OS, and COULDNT be removed. Which made every geek in the world roll his eyes in disbelief.
These people really are insane. They wont be happy until they can charge us every time an IP protected thought crosses our brain. The idea that IP is charged 'per brain' as it were, is slowly coming to be. No more sharing with friends, that would be illegal!
Well that pretty much rules out me ever subscribing to anything by squeenix. Is the weird billing a Japanese thing?
IM sorry, but its really hard to respect anything this guy says. IMHO, he got really lucky with Facebook, and he simply doesnt have that much intellectual capital.
Since when do we listen to manufacturer's claims? You take the new hardware, stress test it with your custom software, record results, plan servers accordingly. How hard is it really to commission a server design that meets your needs and then QA some prototypes?
Until the next patch that is.......
Thats it folks, thinkpads are officially dethroned as the king of business laptops.
IT doesnt even need to go that far. As others have mentioned above, Sega vs. Accolade should cover this.
Your comment needs some clarification. Since we are talking about U.S. patent law, ill stay in that region. In the U.S. there is special blank CD media made for recording music onto CDs using STANDALONE CD recorders. Blank CDs labeled specifically 'for music' have the royalties you describe above attached to it. In Canada, its as you describe.
Couldnt we store up energy in the wind turbines using a gravity method. Something like when there is wind some of the energy is used to pump [matter] to a higher kinetic state and then release it against a electricity generating turbine to maintain a constant rate.
Couldnt you have saved a copy of the original on your computer? Would you have the same argument if you HAD purchased the paper but then were careless and forgot where you put it? Thats exactly what happened here. You HAD a copy of the original article, but you were careless and misplaced/failed to save it.
This is part of the entire argument of net vs books that irritates me. Its not one or the other. They are both a means to an end
I dont underestimate good, structured training material. That doesnt mean I have to print and bind it for it to have value. The internet and books are a means to an end, and the benefits of digitized data far outweigh the physical in most cases. Also, a computer can generally render information into physical form trivially.
To spell it out, the sentiment of my statement is that knowledge on the internet is infinitely more flexible then printed material. When properly vetted and indexed, information on the internet will reach more minds then it EVER would have solely in book form.
All this being said, I DO love books. I have a lovely red leather bound LOTR trilogy tome I read from time to time.
Just wanted to add that while the signal to noise ratio my be high, the signal is so incredibly strong that the noise is easy to filter out.
I could break down your arguments by saying things like, "Why rely solely on a book? If so inclined I could probably contact a few reputable PERL devs online and get real feedback and samples."
Books are great and have their place, but they pale very quickly when compared to the possibilities the internet offers.