And Consumer Reports also has a reputation of not screwing people on both ends, so its clients are more than willing to pay for the content, be it in print or online. It just shows you the power that good ethics can have.
Does the RF cause any problems with other medical equipment? Last time I was at a hospital (a while ago, thankfully), there was a big sign saying, "No cell phones" in order to avoid interference, so I wonder how you deal with that problem.
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=176450863
I don't know if there is a video or audio anywhere, but I said basically the same things that I always say. If you have seen any of my speeches where I address these questions, well, I said what I always say. (Basically, teachers can use wikipedia as a teaching opportunity to help students better assess information sources. Wikipedia has strengths and weaknesses. An outright ban is silly... you can tell students not to listen to rock and roll music, too. But accepting wikipedia as a citable source is not really right either.)--Jimbo Wales 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Which is true. Citing Wikipedia as a source is stupid. Checking Wikipedia for sources, in the other hand, is not that bad of an idea.
Aside from those, there's two links that show pretty much where all the fights go on. The first one is the Administrators' noticeboard, and the second is the Incidents noticeboard. If you read those two pages, you'll pretty much know about every single petty conflict there is. Even if you don't remember the links, you can conveniently type WP:AN and WP:AN/I in the search bar located in the sidebar, and you'll reach the pages. Be warned that reading the pages might be slightly depressing.
It will still be GFDL. But the new GFDL (1.3? 2.0?) will be compatible with CC-BY-SA. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn't changing licenses, at the headline implies; the license itself is changing, and that is a rather important semantic difference.
They may have decided that it's better to overdo it and be laughed at than under report it and be considered incompetent. That is the worse thing that they can do, because overdoing it causes "hurricane fatigue", which was blamed as one reason (p. 113-114) behind the Katrina clusterfuck. False alarms cause people to not evacuate when they need to.
Unfortunately, that is a very real risk associated with long-term hurricane forecasts: Assuming that because there may be a lot of storms, they may devastate an area in particular (something the mass media is particularly good at). A hurricane season can have dozens of storms, and having none affect land. On the other hand, a season may have very few storms but be extremely damaging, like 1992 was. It really takes only one bad storm, like Andrew in 1992 or Mitch in 1998, to turn lives around.
In reality, people have to realize that predicting weather is an inherently unstable mathematical problem, so longer-term forecasts are usually not that accurate. On the other hand, short-term forecasts keep getting better as the understanding of the physical phenomena increases, along with more computational power to throw at the good old models. A bit of preparation before hurricane season never hurts, though.
S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, came 3 senate votes short of unconstitutionally granting DC full representation in the house. Mind explaining why it is unconstitutional, for those of us not as versed in the Constitution as you are?
No, it is still FUD, but it gets stuck in an infinite loop, and then my head asplodes.
Besides, there is no such thing as anti-FUD FUD. FUD, by its definition, can only be defeated with facts that spread reassurance, certainty, and truth.
1998 called, and it wants its FUD back. Hotmail does ask you whether you would like to get newsletters; however, you can always click through that page, and you never get anything. I've used Hotmail for at least five years, and Gmail for a couple, and I've never had a problem with neither one sending me crap I don't like.
FUD is bad, regardless of whether it is pro-Google FUD, or anti-Google FUD.
Before installing it, rename the existing application bundle to something different (e.g. "Firefox 2.0"), and then drag the other App bundle to the Applications folder. Both versions of the program will now be available for your use. Ditto with any other application: I installed iLife '08 yesterday, but I wanted to keep iMovie '06 for the time being. So I did the quick rename thingie, then after the installation process was complete, I opened both of them. They were running side-to-side, with no problems at all.
My experience with doing the same thing on Windows hasn't been as pleasant, but YMMV, of course. But just like in Windows, you can install the new version somewhere different, if you know what you are doing...
Parent is not bullshitting. I usually leave Firefox running and I place my computers in hibernation. Process Explorer (don't be fooled by the URL: It is a great program developed by Sysinternals that was then cannibalized by Microsoft) reported that Firefox was using ~ 850 MB of private memory. That's pretty bad. But opening Apple's Activity Monitor showed that for the same number of tabs, with similar content, Firefox was using 1.5 GB of RAM. That's even worse.
In my experience, Firefox 2.0 has been the worse version in the responsiveness department. Having a few tabs open slows down the computers significantly. What is even worse is that Firefox keeps crashing while trying to release memory on exit, not just on Mac OS X, but now on Windows XP as well. So, when I restart Firefox, it asks me if I want to reopen all of those tabs, taking even more time and memory in the process.
Firefox 1.5 didn't use to be bad at all, but if 3.0 doesn't fix these issues, I'll jump ship back to IE 7 / Safari. Who cares if it is free as in speech if you can't use it...:(
In fact, nobody from Firefox could explain why people are sent to "news search" (Google by default) when they type plain "news" to URL field and they require special key to fill.com and send to cnet news.com for example. Except when I tried it, it sent me to CNN, not Google News. My version of Firefox is 2.0.0.9, and I haven't changed search engines or played around with the default settings. Unless you are saying that Google wants to send traffic to CNN for some obscure reason, I think the only flavor here is simple FUD.
I'd be rather surprised if you got an official reaction from Wikipedia about anything. That is like trying to get something productive out of the U.S. Congress...
This is far worse than normal infringement, because when I infringe copyright, I'm honest about it, and so are millions of others. We know what we're doing, and we don't try to cover it up. We give credit to the creator. That is the real issue here, IMO. Unlike what other people who have commented here believe, putting a segment of a Wikipedia article in a separate work is not copyright infringement. It is called quoting the article, and if done properly, will not get you in any trouble. It is when you quote it improperly, making the allusion that the article is your own work, when you will run into problems, but last time I checked, that happened with any source, be it from Wikipedia or anywhere else.
To be honest, I'm rather surprised at the number of people who think that quoting one sentence from Wiki will cause an entire book to be contaminated under the GFDL. If that were true, then peer-reviewed articles couldn't include quotations from copyrighted sources, or from other refereed papers. That is obviously not the case, because not every academic in the world is guilty of copyright infringement. Again, the problem is with having no trace back to the original source of the ideas.
Yes, the fact that an entire article got copied here makes the problem much more intricate than quoting a simple sentence. However, I see that piece of FUD being repeated all over the place, and I would in fact risk saying that it contributes to the plagiarism problem. Not only is citing Wikipedia considered "unacceptable" by many professionals (in a way, rightly so), but also this FUD encourages plagiarism. Why? Well, the thought that using a piece of Wikipedia information causes your entire work to become copylefted gives an incentive to try to hide the fact that you used Wikipedia in the first place. The fact that people don't credit Wikipedia discourages many Wikipedia editors (perhaps not all) from contributing free content, as they will not get credit for it. With less free content available, everybody loses.
That is my point of view as to why this issue is problematic: Not because of the GFDL violation, but rather the plagiarism done to the author of the page and the prolongation of an unnecessary stigma around Wikipedia content. Hell, I wouldn't be writing something if I didn't want somebody to read it. But I'd love them to know that it was me who came up with the idea they are reading, not some other schmuck... is that unreasonable?
One of the things that actually make time machine work well is that OS X keeps a log of every file updated on the system, and when the time machine daemon runs it looks at that log and knows which files to back up(as well as what time to mark them with etc). There's one correction to be made there. Keeping a log of each updated file would be overkill, at least from a disk space standpoint, so FSEvents reports changes at the directory level instead. The rest of your point stands, though.
Because the chance of the new editor reading the talk page is dismally low, as well, and probably even lower than reading an edit summary. (New editors: YMMV, of course.) I've done that before, and it is like watching a tumbleweed go over a remote road: Not even registered editors care to discuss that stuff in many cases.
Yeah, I'm not going to deny that is a pain in the ass. But this should explain why we were forced to add that ugly beast. Throwaway accounts were being created for harassment/block evasion, which made life as an admin quite interesting...
Um... you don't need *anything* to register a Wikipedia account. While the login form may ask you for a ton of fields, only your username and password are required; nothing else is (aside the CAPTCHA, but that goes without saying). In fact, being an unregistered editor exposes your IP address to the public, while registered editors are covered by the Wikimedia privacy policy.
Well, did you provide a reason why you deleted the content?
The bots are not infallible. They do catch a ton of the really ridiculous crap that people add to Wikipedia, but they miss some, and have a few false positives as well.
If you are not some random vandal, one thing that you could (actually, should do, as I strongly recommend it) is that you specify why you remove content in the "Edit summary" box. If you say, "Removing movies unrelated to mafia", the bot leaves you alone, or if someone sees the bot revert your removal for an invalid reasons, they can always revert the bot. I've done that myself many a time.
Remember: Humans watch the Recent changes feed too. If you provide a reason for the human, the human may leave you alone. Otherwise, you're just a random IP that is removing content for no reason whatsoever, which happens all day, every day.
~~~~
Slashdot Mirror
And Consumer Reports also has a reputation of not screwing people on both ends, so its clients are more than willing to pay for the content, be it in print or online. It just shows you the power that good ethics can have.
Does the RF cause any problems with other medical equipment? Last time I was at a hospital (a while ago, thankfully), there was a big sign saying, "No cell phones" in order to avoid interference, so I wonder how you deal with that problem.
A few links you may like: The List of administrators. If you prefer the MediaWiki-generated list, try Special:Listusers.
Aside from those, there's two links that show pretty much where all the fights go on. The first one is the Administrators' noticeboard, and the second is the Incidents noticeboard. If you read those two pages, you'll pretty much know about every single petty conflict there is. Even if you don't remember the links, you can conveniently type WP:AN and WP:AN/I in the search bar located in the sidebar, and you'll reach the pages. Be warned that reading the pages might be slightly depressing.
Hey, it's not like I wouldn't mind seeing this... oh, wait, I already have.
It will still be GFDL. But the new GFDL (1.3? 2.0?) will be compatible with CC-BY-SA. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn't changing licenses, at the headline implies; the license itself is changing, and that is a rather important semantic difference.
Hey, at least this season was within the activity estimates made at the beginning of the year. Let's say that 2006 wasn't that accurate.
Unfortunately, that is a very real risk associated with long-term hurricane forecasts: Assuming that because there may be a lot of storms, they may devastate an area in particular (something the mass media is particularly good at). A hurricane season can have dozens of storms, and having none affect land. On the other hand, a season may have very few storms but be extremely damaging, like 1992 was. It really takes only one bad storm, like Andrew in 1992 or Mitch in 1998, to turn lives around.
In reality, people have to realize that predicting weather is an inherently unstable mathematical problem, so longer-term forecasts are usually not that accurate. On the other hand, short-term forecasts keep getting better as the understanding of the physical phenomena increases, along with more computational power to throw at the good old models. A bit of preparation before hurricane season never hurts, though.
No, it is still FUD, but it gets stuck in an infinite loop, and then my head asplodes.
Besides, there is no such thing as anti-FUD FUD. FUD, by its definition, can only be defeated with facts that spread reassurance, certainty, and truth.
1998 called, and it wants its FUD back. Hotmail does ask you whether you would like to get newsletters; however, you can always click through that page, and you never get anything. I've used Hotmail for at least five years, and Gmail for a couple, and I've never had a problem with neither one sending me crap I don't like.
FUD is bad, regardless of whether it is pro-Google FUD, or anti-Google FUD.
Yes, pretty much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#Formation
~~~~
Before installing it, rename the existing application bundle to something different (e.g. "Firefox 2.0"), and then drag the other App bundle to the Applications folder. Both versions of the program will now be available for your use. Ditto with any other application: I installed iLife '08 yesterday, but I wanted to keep iMovie '06 for the time being. So I did the quick rename thingie, then after the installation process was complete, I opened both of them. They were running side-to-side, with no problems at all. My experience with doing the same thing on Windows hasn't been as pleasant, but YMMV, of course. But just like in Windows, you can install the new version somewhere different, if you know what you are doing...
Parent is not bullshitting. I usually leave Firefox running and I place my computers in hibernation. Process Explorer (don't be fooled by the URL: It is a great program developed by Sysinternals that was then cannibalized by Microsoft) reported that Firefox was using ~ 850 MB of private memory. That's pretty bad. But opening Apple's Activity Monitor showed that for the same number of tabs, with similar content, Firefox was using 1.5 GB of RAM. That's even worse.
:(
In my experience, Firefox 2.0 has been the worse version in the responsiveness department. Having a few tabs open slows down the computers significantly. What is even worse is that Firefox keeps crashing while trying to release memory on exit, not just on Mac OS X, but now on Windows XP as well. So, when I restart Firefox, it asks me if I want to reopen all of those tabs, taking even more time and memory in the process.
Firefox 1.5 didn't use to be bad at all, but if 3.0 doesn't fix these issues, I'll jump ship back to IE 7 / Safari. Who cares if it is free as in speech if you can't use it...
I'd be rather surprised if you got an official reaction from Wikipedia about anything. That is like trying to get something productive out of the U.S. Congress...
To be honest, I'm rather surprised at the number of people who think that quoting one sentence from Wiki will cause an entire book to be contaminated under the GFDL. If that were true, then peer-reviewed articles couldn't include quotations from copyrighted sources, or from other refereed papers. That is obviously not the case, because not every academic in the world is guilty of copyright infringement. Again, the problem is with having no trace back to the original source of the ideas.
Yes, the fact that an entire article got copied here makes the problem much more intricate than quoting a simple sentence. However, I see that piece of FUD being repeated all over the place, and I would in fact risk saying that it contributes to the plagiarism problem. Not only is citing Wikipedia considered "unacceptable" by many professionals (in a way, rightly so), but also this FUD encourages plagiarism. Why? Well, the thought that using a piece of Wikipedia information causes your entire work to become copylefted gives an incentive to try to hide the fact that you used Wikipedia in the first place. The fact that people don't credit Wikipedia discourages many Wikipedia editors (perhaps not all) from contributing free content, as they will not get credit for it. With less free content available, everybody loses.
That is my point of view as to why this issue is problematic: Not because of the GFDL violation, but rather the plagiarism done to the author of the page and the prolongation of an unnecessary stigma around Wikipedia content. Hell, I wouldn't be writing something if I didn't want somebody to read it. But I'd love them to know that it was me who came up with the idea they are reading, not some other schmuck... is that unreasonable?
~~~~
~~~~
Here's the press release by Arizona State about this: http://asunews.asu.edu/20071023_nanotech
Because the chance of the new editor reading the talk page is dismally low, as well, and probably even lower than reading an edit summary. (New editors: YMMV, of course.) I've done that before, and it is like watching a tumbleweed go over a remote road: Not even registered editors care to discuss that stuff in many cases.
~~~~
Yeah, I'm not going to deny that is a pain in the ass. But this should explain why we were forced to add that ugly beast. Throwaway accounts were being created for harassment/block evasion, which made life as an admin quite interesting...
~~~~
Um... you don't need *anything* to register a Wikipedia account. While the login form may ask you for a ton of fields, only your username and password are required; nothing else is (aside the CAPTCHA, but that goes without saying). In fact, being an unregistered editor exposes your IP address to the public, while registered editors are covered by the Wikimedia privacy policy.
~~~~
Well, did you provide a reason why you deleted the content?
The bots are not infallible. They do catch a ton of the really ridiculous crap that people add to Wikipedia, but they miss some, and have a few false positives as well.
If you are not some random vandal, one thing that you could (actually, should do, as I strongly recommend it) is that you specify why you remove content in the "Edit summary" box. If you say, "Removing movies unrelated to mafia", the bot leaves you alone, or if someone sees the bot revert your removal for an invalid reasons, they can always revert the bot. I've done that myself many a time.
Remember: Humans watch the Recent changes feed too. If you provide a reason for the human, the human may leave you alone. Otherwise, you're just a random IP that is removing content for no reason whatsoever, which happens all day, every day. ~~~~
Well, then I have to give you a much delayed {{subst:welcome3}}.
~~~~