"If you're simply charged with a single misdemeanor from a long time ago and it doesn't fall into a higher category, it is unlikely that you'll be inadmissible for that single offence."
In other words, Canada will only accept people who have not recently been arrested for lying on the ground in nonviolent protest. On the other hand, if you regularly do this, as was common during the US civil rights movement, Canada wants nothing to do with you. If they were still around today (and their various arrests were more recent), could MLK or Rosa Parks get into Canada? How about their lesser-known followers?
There are some decisions that cannot be left up to voting. One such decision is making a change that will ultimately benefit the encyclopedia despite initial user fear.
Another is voting for president when the average person knows more about the candidate's spouse's personal hobbies than about the candidate's policies.
I think it would be better to lobby for "stable version" features in Wikipedia as I suggested in another reply to your previous post. Everyone has heard of Wikipedia, but until everyone knows about Veropedia, your user base is going to remain very small. It's better to fix the problem at the source than create something else to help control the problem.
"Wikipedia has needed to go to a stable versions model for a long while, but has been dragging its butt for way too long."
This is no reason to fork. The "stable version" addition to Mediawiki has been discussed for quite a while now, and is definitely feasible. When articles reach a certain quality, they can be protected so that certain editors (such as IP editors or week-old accounts) can still make changes, but those changes will not be visible until approved by an administrator. There will essentially be a stable live version, and an unstable edited version.
"Whereas all those other sites mirror the most recent revision, Veropedia mirrors a specific revision that has been identified as good. "
This sounds unlikely. You mirror a specific edit that an expert identifies as good? So what does the expert do, go through each version of an article until he finds one that is both factually accurate and comprehensive? Or does the expert simply tell you which sentences are inaccurate, and then you delete them? The result will be a hacked-up article lacking flow and depth.
"As for there being other projects aimed at identifying and vetting important Wikipedia articles, that's good, but you can never have too much improvement."
Wikipedia is one project with many editors. Veropedia is one of many subprojects, each with few editors; given a finite (and likely small) number of people interested in working on this, you are providing yet another outlet for people to essentially reinvent the wheel by once again vetting the same set of Wikipedia articles for your own encyclopedia. Instead of everyone working together to produce a profitable, accurate subset of Wikipedia articles, users are stuck signing up with one of many subprojects, to do the exact same tasks as the other subprojects.
Dozens of sites mirror Wikipedia with ads. This is nothing new. There are already legitimate non-projects aimed at identifying and vetting important Wikipedia articles for CD creation and distribution.
Of course, now with the admission that Jacobson has since discovered errors in his original paper, creationists will call into question all scientific papers - after all, if errors such as those in his paper can get through, who knows how much false information is in the scientific literature!!!
It's not a watermelon seed is it? I hear if you swallow those, they grow into a watermelon in your stomach. Then maybe you'd forget about that pesky disease and worry more about your serious melon-based intestinal backup problem.
As I read this response I couldn't help but hear the voice of the G-Man in my head:
"We are pleased to have cooperated with the New York Attorney General and to have voluntarily reached this agreement," a company spokesman told Associated Press. "When this was brought to our attention, we understood that advertising for our NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess services could provide more clarity."
"YAY, I have a tiny chance of receiving $7.32 off my comcast bill in 6 years time!"
Unfortunately, to get in on the lawsuit, you have to submit an online form - and the cost of sending those few hundred KB of information over a Comcast line will doubtless cancel out that award.
Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should cooperate, and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother "live in scrutiny" and would "make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell." Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: "that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don't advise people of their rights, they don't - yeah, probably about torture, sure."
Higazy later said, "I knew that I couldn't prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger." He explained that "[t]he only thing that went through my head was oh, my God, I am screwed and my family's in danger. If I say this device is mine, I'm screwed and my family is going to be safe. If I say this device is not mine, I'm screwed and my family's in danger. And Agent Templeton made it quite clear that cooperate had to mean saying something else other than this device is not mine."
Higazy explained why he feared for his family:
"The Egyptian government has very little tolerance for anybody who is --they're suspicious of being a terrorist. To give you an idea, Saddam's security force--as they later on were called his henchmen--a lot of them learned their methods and techniques in Egypt; torture, rape, some stuff would be even too sick to . . . . My father is 67. My mother is 61. I have a brother who developed arthritis at 19. He still has it today. When the word 'torture' comes at least for my brother, I mean, all they have to do is really just press on one of these knuckles. I couldn't imagine them doing anything to my sister."
And Higazy added:
"[L]et's just say a lot of people in Egypt would stay away from a family that they know or they believe or even rumored to have anything to do with terrorists and by the same token, some people who actually could be --might try to get to them and somebody might actually make a connection. I wasn't going to risk that. I wasn't going to risk that, so I thought to myself what could I say that he would believe. What could I say that's convincing? And I said okay."
"By coercing a confession from this guy, the FBI basically would be letting the *actual* terrorist go free and clear. If this doesn't make sense to you, imagine the case of a rapist on the loose. Imagine that every time a woman was raped, the police chose from a hat and arrested and tried a random person. Would that make your wife safer on the streets alone at night? Having a random guy in jail while the real rapist is still out on the hunt? What's more, thinking that the rapist is in jail, she might be MORE inclined to enter into riskier situations."
This is basically what happened in Fahrenheit 451. The police were trying to catch the main character, with thousands of people watching the chase live on TV. When the police realized they wouldn't find him, they went into their public files to find someone else eccentric to catch, just to give the audience some closure (and to maintain their "perfect record" appearance).
Radio Shack will finally have an incentive to start a Universal Adapter ISP that'll bridge the various parts of the internet, which all use slightly-different-sized plugs to transmit data.
"Go around any college campus and just about everybody has Photoshop. Very few actually paid for it."
Yes, and if their only choice is to pay for it, they will opt not to use it at all. Either way, Adobe's sales dept will notice little or no difference, while they will have spent millions trying to stop the "problem".
Slashdot Mirror
"If you're simply charged with a single misdemeanor from a long time ago and it doesn't fall into a higher category, it is unlikely that you'll be inadmissible for that single offence."
In other words, Canada will only accept people who have not recently been arrested for lying on the ground in nonviolent protest. On the other hand, if you regularly do this, as was common during the US civil rights movement, Canada wants nothing to do with you. If they were still around today (and their various arrests were more recent), could MLK or Rosa Parks get into Canada? How about their lesser-known followers?
There are some decisions that cannot be left up to voting. One such decision is making a change that will ultimately benefit the encyclopedia despite initial user fear.
Another is voting for president when the average person knows more about the candidate's spouse's personal hobbies than about the candidate's policies.
"There are Slashdotters smaller than XL? Hmmm, must recalculate worldview..."
Only the ones who know there is an "outside world" where parties occur - and this is by far a minority of users.
Didn't you see what Taco said?
"I hope many of you around the net got your t-shirts."
Can't you see? Can't you see how much he hopes you got your t-shirts? Isn't the uniquely-human ideal of hope more worthwhile than any guarantee?
I think it would be better to lobby for "stable version" features in Wikipedia as I suggested in another reply to your previous post. Everyone has heard of Wikipedia, but until everyone knows about Veropedia, your user base is going to remain very small. It's better to fix the problem at the source than create something else to help control the problem.
"Wikipedia has needed to go to a stable versions model for a long while, but has been dragging its butt for way too long."
This is no reason to fork. The "stable version" addition to Mediawiki has been discussed for quite a while now, and is definitely feasible. When articles reach a certain quality, they can be protected so that certain editors (such as IP editors or week-old accounts) can still make changes, but those changes will not be visible until approved by an administrator. There will essentially be a stable live version, and an unstable edited version.
"Whereas all those other sites mirror the most recent revision, Veropedia mirrors a specific revision that has been identified as good. "
This sounds unlikely. You mirror a specific edit that an expert identifies as good? So what does the expert do, go through each version of an article until he finds one that is both factually accurate and comprehensive? Or does the expert simply tell you which sentences are inaccurate, and then you delete them? The result will be a hacked-up article lacking flow and depth.
"As for there being other projects aimed at identifying and vetting important Wikipedia articles, that's good, but you can never have too much improvement."
Wikipedia is one project with many editors. Veropedia is one of many subprojects, each with few editors; given a finite (and likely small) number of people interested in working on this, you are providing yet another outlet for people to essentially reinvent the wheel by once again vetting the same set of Wikipedia articles for your own encyclopedia. Instead of everyone working together to produce a profitable, accurate subset of Wikipedia articles, users are stuck signing up with one of many subprojects, to do the exact same tasks as the other subprojects.
"non-projects"
I think I meant "non-profit projects". The compression methods of my brain occasionally go too far.
Dozens of sites mirror Wikipedia with ads. This is nothing new. There are already legitimate non-projects aimed at identifying and vetting important Wikipedia articles for CD creation and distribution.
Of course, now with the admission that Jacobson has since discovered errors in his original paper, creationists will call into question all scientific papers - after all, if errors such as those in his paper can get through, who knows how much false information is in the scientific literature!!!
It's not a watermelon seed is it? I hear if you swallow those, they grow into a watermelon in your stomach. Then maybe you'd forget about that pesky disease and worry more about your serious melon-based intestinal backup problem.
As I read this response I couldn't help but hear the voice of the G-Man in my head:
"We are pleased to have cooperated with the New York Attorney General and to have voluntarily reached this agreement," a company spokesman told Associated Press. "When this was brought to our attention, we understood that advertising for our NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess services could provide more clarity."
My main gmail account does not have the option, but my professional/personal one does. How are they deciding this?
"YAY, I have a tiny chance of receiving $7.32 off my comcast bill in 6 years time!"
Unfortunately, to get in on the lawsuit, you have to submit an online form - and the cost of sending those few hundred KB of information over a Comcast line will doubtless cancel out that award.
So they're not actually stopping the transfers, they're postponing them indefinitely.
*Sigh of relief*
Here is the redacted part:
Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should cooperate, and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother "live in scrutiny" and would "make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell." Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: "that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don't advise people of their rights, they don't - yeah, probably about torture, sure."
Higazy later said, "I knew that I couldn't prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger." He explained that "[t]he only thing that went through my head was oh, my God, I am screwed and my family's in danger. If I say this device is mine, I'm screwed and my family is going to be safe. If I say this device is not mine, I'm screwed and my family's in danger. And Agent Templeton made it quite clear that cooperate had to mean saying something else other than this device is not mine."
Higazy explained why he feared for his family:
"The Egyptian government has very little tolerance for anybody who is --they're suspicious of being a terrorist. To give you an idea, Saddam's security force--as they later on were called his henchmen--a lot of them learned their methods and techniques in Egypt; torture, rape, some stuff would be even too sick to . . . . My father is 67. My mother is 61. I have a brother who developed arthritis at 19. He still has it today. When the word 'torture' comes at least for my brother, I mean, all they have to do is really just press on one of these knuckles. I couldn't imagine them doing anything to my sister."
And Higazy added:
"[L]et's just say a lot of people in Egypt would stay away from a family that they know or they believe or even rumored to have anything to do with terrorists and by the same token, some people who actually could be --might try to get to them and somebody might actually make a connection. I wasn't going to risk that. I wasn't going to risk that, so I thought to myself what could I say that he would believe. What could I say that's convincing? And I said okay."
"By coercing a confession from this guy, the FBI basically would be letting the *actual* terrorist go free and clear. If this doesn't make sense to you, imagine the case of a rapist on the loose. Imagine that every time a woman was raped, the police chose from a hat and arrested and tried a random person. Would that make your wife safer on the streets alone at night? Having a random guy in jail while the real rapist is still out on the hunt? What's more, thinking that the rapist is in jail, she might be MORE inclined to enter into riskier situations."
This is basically what happened in Fahrenheit 451. The police were trying to catch the main character, with thousands of people watching the chase live on TV. When the police realized they wouldn't find him, they went into their public files to find someone else eccentric to catch, just to give the audience some closure (and to maintain their "perfect record" appearance).
"Linux distros because of all the ISOs involved"
Yes, how dare I, the consumer, use the entire amount of bandwidth that I have paid my ISP to provide to me!
Unfortunately this is the default argument for certain easily-influenced politicians trying to rebrand their vote as "fighting big government".
Radio Shack will finally have an incentive to start a Universal Adapter ISP that'll bridge the various parts of the internet, which all use slightly-different-sized plugs to transmit data.
"Hey, did you see that video on YouTube today?"
"No, I can't. My ISP doesn't support that part of the internet."
"Oh... that sucks... well, I can email you the video."
"From your Comcast address? No, that won't do. My hardware is not Comcast-enabled."
"a degree in some other field, such as software engineering, and then decide they want to take up graphic design?"
;)
They could apply that degree by writing their own image editing software.
Try Adobe Acrobat Pro or Adobe Premiere Pro.
"Go around any college campus and just about everybody has Photoshop. Very few actually paid for it."
Yes, and if their only choice is to pay for it, they will opt not to use it at all. Either way, Adobe's sales dept will notice little or no difference, while they will have spent millions trying to stop the "problem".
I haven't found any software that takes longer to load than Adobe's. Now they're going to narrow the bottleneck by putting it online? Great idea...