The real solution is to be careful wherever you can. Don't open email attachments of an unknown sender. Don't visit untrustworthy websites. Caution is still the best weapon against viruses.
Many civil rights activists in Germany are alarmed because of his proposals to stop the assumption of innocence when there is a chance to prevent acts of terrorism [1]. Civil rights activist see him as an enemy of the German constitution, as he is a strong supporter of telecommunications data retention and overall surveillance.
His views on invasion of Iraq was quite "normal"; his party, the CDU was supporting it.
I wonder why Apple is supposed to have more money then AMD. So why not "AMD buys apple"? They are both big companies... anyone knows how much money they have?
Look at this page, there you have many mirrors of Wikipedia (they are meant to be used when Wikipedia is down, but it works equally well when Wikipedia is blocked).
Why don't we care first about problems in our own country instead of trying to help the third world? I am a white, so why should I care about persecution of blacks?
It doesn't really matter who feels pain, or where someone feels pain. We have to see interests (of creatures who have interests) as equal worthy interests. And we can help to kill much pain by stopping animal torture (such as factory farming). That doesn't mean we have to care only about animals, but we must stop ignoring them.
Or, more generally: rights come with responsibilities. Which is something most of the animal rights movements fail to acknowledge.
Oh, so why does a baby have the right to live? Babies don't have responsibilities.
"It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.
What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes..."
- Jeremy Bentham: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
At the time, this seemed like a plausibly decent idea to me, and the reaction at the time was mostly positive, with some reasonable caveats and improvements:
Nowadays, I bring back the proposal for further consideration in light of the EssJay scandal. I think it imperative that we make some positive moves here... we have a real opportunity here to move the quality of Wikipedia forward by doing something that many have vaguely thought to be a reasonably good idea if worked out carefully.
For anyone who is reading but not online, I will sum it up. I made a proposal that we have a system whereby people who are willing to verify their real name and credentials are allowed a special notification. "Verified Credentials". This could be a rather open ended system, and optional.
The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with the general public. If you don't care to tell us that you are a PhD (or that you are not), then that's fine: your editing stands or falls on its own merit. But if you do care to represent yourself as something, you have to be able to prove it.
This policy will be coupled with a policy of gentle (or firm) discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made, unless they are willing to back them up.
How to confirm? What counts as confirmation? What sorts of things need confirmation? These are very interesting questions, as there are many types of situations. But one thing that we have always been very very good at is taking the time to develop a nuanced policy.
Just to take a simple example: how to verify a professor? This strikes me as being quite simple in most cases. The professor gives a link to his or her faculty page at the college or university, including the email there, and someone emails that address to say "are you really EssJay?" If the answer is yes, then that's a reasonable confirmation.
We can imagine some wild ways that someone might crack that process (stealing a professor's email account, etc.) but I think we need not design around the worst case scenario, but rather design around the reasonable case of a reasonable person who is happy to confirm credentials to us.
(This is a lower level of confirmation than we might expect an employer to take, of course.)
For someone like me, well, I have an M.A. in finance. I could fax a copy of the degree to the office. Again, someone could fake their credentials, but I don't think we need to design against some mad worst case scenario but just to have a basic level of confirmation.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list
Follow the path of Wikipedia. In 1997 no one believed the biggest encyclopedia in the world would be free (both free as in freedom and free as in beer) in 10 years. You can do the same with science!
I've heard how bad the situation is: Scientist publish their papers in scientific magazines without getting payed. Other scientist review those papers, without being paid either.. but buying those magazines is really expensive. Basically the magazines don't do anything useful for science... they just cost much...
Slashdot Mirror
The real solution is to be careful wherever you can. Don't open email attachments of an unknown sender. Don't visit untrustworthy websites. Caution is still the best weapon against viruses.
Many civil rights activists in Germany are alarmed because of his proposals to stop the assumption of innocence when there is a chance to prevent acts of terrorism [1]. Civil rights activist see him as an enemy of the German constitution, as he is a strong supporter of telecommunications data retention and overall surveillance.
His views on invasion of Iraq was quite "normal"; his party, the CDU was supporting it.
In Soviet Russia, government cyber-attacks you.
But Sweeney wasn't throwing chairs, was he?
rm -rf /
What about that?
I wonder why Apple is supposed to have more money then AMD. So why not "AMD buys apple"?
They are both big companies... anyone knows how much money they have?
"The problem with Wikipedia is that it's constantly changing,"
Just click on "Permanent link" and you will have a version that won't change. Or click on Cite this article.
Look at this page, there you have many mirrors of Wikipedia (they are meant to be used when Wikipedia is down, but it works equally well when Wikipedia is blocked).
Why don't we care first about problems in our own country instead of trying to help the third world? I am a white, so why should I care about persecution of blacks?
It doesn't really matter who feels pain, or where someone feels pain. We have to see interests (of creatures who have interests) as equal worthy interests. And we can help to kill much pain by stopping animal torture (such as factory farming). That doesn't mean we have to care only about animals, but we must stop ignoring them.
Or, more generally: rights come with responsibilities. Which is something most of the animal rights movements fail to acknowledge.
..."
Oh, so why does a baby have the right to live? Babies don't have responsibilities.
"It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes
- Jeremy Bentham: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
I've got a brilliant idea! Why not just use a mouse and a keyboard! That way you could move even less...oh wait...
One principal of a democracy is that everyone can verify the counting of votes.
Now unless you teach everyone how to program I don't see how you can preserve this principal.
Here is what Jimbo wrote:
2 005-May/022085.html
2 005-May/thread.html
---------
In response to the EssJay scandal, I want to bring back an old proposal
of mine from 2 years ago for greater accountability around credentials:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/
At the time, this seemed like a plausibly decent idea to me, and the
reaction at the time was mostly positive, with some reasonable caveats
and improvements:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/
to read the entire thread of "An idea".
Nowadays, I bring back the proposal for further consideration in light
of the EssJay scandal. I think it imperative that we make some positive
moves here... we have a real opportunity here to move the quality of
Wikipedia forward by doing something that many have vaguely thought to
be a reasonably good idea if worked out carefully.
For anyone who is reading but not online, I will sum it up. I made a
proposal that we have a system whereby people who are willing to verify
their real name and credentials are allowed a special notification.
"Verified Credentials". This could be a rather open ended system, and
optional.
The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with
the general public. If you don't care to tell us that you are a PhD (or
that you are not), then that's fine: your editing stands or falls on its
own merit. But if you do care to represent yourself as something, you
have to be able to prove it.
This policy will be coupled with a policy of gentle (or firm)
discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made,
unless they are willing to back them up.
How to confirm? What counts as confirmation? What sorts of things need
confirmation? These are very interesting questions, as there are many
types of situations. But one thing that we have always been very very
good at is taking the time to develop a nuanced policy.
Just to take a simple example: how to verify a professor? This strikes
me as being quite simple in most cases. The professor gives a link to
his or her faculty page at the college or university, including the
email there, and someone emails that address to say "are you really
EssJay?" If the answer is yes, then that's a reasonable confirmation.
We can imagine some wild ways that someone might crack that process
(stealing a professor's email account, etc.) but I think we need not
design around the worst case scenario, but rather design around the
reasonable case of a reasonable person who is happy to confirm
credentials to us.
(This is a lower level of confirmation than we might expect an employer
to take, of course.)
For someone like me, well, I have an M.A. in finance. I could fax a
copy of the degree to the office. Again, someone could fake their
credentials, but I don't think we need to design against some mad worst
case scenario but just to have a basic level of confirmation.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
which proclaims itself the "most prestigious law school discussion board in the world."
After being on Slashdot it is.
But does it run GNU/Linux?
At least some of it is - if in the USA an institution publish anything it is public domain (for example NASA images).
Follow the path of Wikipedia. In 1997 no one believed the biggest encyclopedia in the world would be free (both free as in freedom and free as in beer) in 10 years. You can do the same with science!
I've heard how bad the situation is: Scientist publish their papers in scientific magazines without getting payed. Other scientist review those papers, without being paid either.. but buying those magazines is really expensive. Basically the magazines don't do anything useful for science... they just cost much...
Seems like they are using it as their server...
I'm sure arguments about freedom convinced them :P