If Wikipedia has too many trashy articles then it devalues all other articles.
See, now this I will never understand. Bad articles do not make good articles less valuable, or even less trusted. Now, people will never trust a Wikipedia article as much as a true, unilateral source, but that's because of the nature of Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with random trash articles no one ever sees anyway.
And how do you know that "no one" ever sees them anyway? Well, they haven't been corrected yet. Wikipedia is self correcting. If information is valuable enough to be looked up, it will be valuable enough to correct.
Deleting them takes far less effort, and most of them wouldn't be missed.
Honestly, does it take that much more effort to tag something as "unreliable" as it does to delete them?
The only real substance in TFA is the quoted statistics for an increase in pedophilia-related arrests.
Thing is, the internet is a great tool for arrests as well as the spread of pedophilia. IP addresses, idiots posting personal info online, the fact that it is as easy to be a cop pretending to be a child as it is for a pedophile to enter a chatroom and chat up real kids.
Why don't we instead simply agree that while this state of affairs may be the case, it isn't the "fault" of the internet?
Because it may not be the case. No matter how much we may talk about "predisposition" and "catalysts" it's just talking out of our asses unless we know specifics. How many crack-pot psychology theories have been spread around over the years because some yahoos spun a story and everyone just nodded along?
1) A business can have excess in the bank and still be "failing." MS in particular has *always* made it a priority to save for future expansions (so a lot of that excess existed before pre-Ballmer). This means nothing if they can't turn profits *now.*
2) GW isn't responsible for putting the US into debt. He is responsible for the huge *deficit* (a year-by-year total, currently in the high billions), and threatens to take existing debt to record highs, but the trillion-dollar-debt was more or less inherited from Reagan.
Okay, so you're willing to take that "chance." That's all fine and good. But if you "win" and Microsoft isn't a "natural monopoly?" You won't be able to tell the difference, because they'll *still* be controlling everything and screwing you over.
"Natural monopoly" only has meaning when there *are* anti-trust laws in effect. "Unnatural" monopolies (like Microsoft may be) are only broken up when anti-trust laws say so. Otherwise, they strangle any and all competition in the cradle.
May I suggest another roleplaying system? If your focus is on storytelling and social combat, you're better off with a combat-light system (such as a White Wolf game, Dogs in the Vineyard, or a random Steve Jackson RPG)
As for me, I am reserving judgement. I happen to *like* combat, and though I usually streamline stuff (grappling) I like to play it straight; I usually find that once we know all the rules, then we can go to town and throw out encounters that would normally take 2 hours because of all the errata (except we either know it, or we know enough to fake it quickly)
Their desires and passions will be dictated by us. If we want them to be pacifistic, we can program them to that effect, using a priority system. Emphasis on "if."
Our strongest, "highest priority" desires are arranged according to what will lead to our survival and reproduction. But what really defines that for a robot? Robots can exist forever, in theory, but that doesn't mean we'll build them so that they *do.* If we make an identical robot each time the old is destroyed, we could say that, in effect, the robot has "reproduced." In other words, a robot's "evolutionary success" is determined by us, who built them.
So what combination of "desire" and "passions" will lead to "evolutionary success?" It depends on their purpose. Some will be servitile, others will be irreverent. Some may even be borderline sociopathic (by our standards). Some will be bigots and treat a race of humans as "superior" to another.
So I believe that a robot's mind will resemble a humans', but there will be areas in which they do not resemble us at all. Including a stark diversity stemming from purpose (which, who knows, given our advances in genetics, may already exist in humans by that point)
Come on, first you're claiming that men die more often then women, then saying, "well, even if there WERE more women dying than men it would be okay because they'd be pandering to the heterosexual men?" Take one claim and stick to it, please.
And you can point out exceptions to the rule all you want, but in general: heroism *does* matter. Men don't get stuffed in fridges; they die in combat against a powerful foe. If they get crippled, it only serves to launch a story in which they overcome their debilitation and win the day. Rarely, if ever, are they victims. Women are more often truly "broken" (although this trend is stronger among non-hero females, eg. relatives)
What men and women are "supposed" to do has nothing to do with fridge logic.
"Large" and "well-established" do not translate into "harmful monopoly." A company has to be actively stifling competition in order to be subject to anti-trust suits. Microsoft's argument is that someday along the way, Google can use its power to stifle competition. Well I don't buy that yet.
Jack Thompson is on trial for actively and willingly making a mockery of the justice system. I don't care what your agenda is or how much you believe in it; the zeroth rule of social change is: no matter what happens, you act like a goddamned adult. Jack Thompson's multiple antics, both in and out of court (threatening emails to satirists, his little gay porn stunt, etc) show that he does not possess the maturity to babysit a five-year-old, let alone make important decisions in a court of law.
"Fighting for what you believe in" does not give you license to act like a moron.
Things like "reversible time" were built into some early games implicitly, such as Zelda (screw up a puzzle? Leave and come back and you're golden), or explicitly, such as in Lufia 2 (1998), which literally had a room-reset spell you could cast. Other early Final Fantasy games (FF5, 1992, I believe is the earliest) had time spells that let you restart battles as if you'd never fought them.
People are probably more likely to "socialize" with a robot if they can put it in its own separate category easily. Interacting with a non-human intelligence yet human container is bound to be disturbing (it's one of the sources of the uncanny valley)
It's not the *customers* who don't want to know how a computer works--its the manufacturers themselves who have a vested interest in keeping them ignorant of the details.
Want to replace your HD? Bring it over to our "specialized professional" and we'll fix it for you. Oh, and if you open that new laptop of yours, you'll void the warranty; we all know you're too stupid to replace the fan yourself. Bring it to our professional. Oh, and we'll install Windows Vista too--it's the new best thing.
Paradoxically, it's the large amount of purposefully ignorant people that offer hope for IT as a non-suck career (at least, IT in India)
Sure, and I challenge everyone on/. to jump up and down at the same time. We can cause an earthquake!
Boycotting is not "action." It simply makes those who practice it feel better about their perceived lack of power. One person, or even one website with its users making a personal choice, is not even a blip on the radar. It is really no better than whining.
If you want to do something about the injustices in the world, take real action. Spread the word beyond Slashdot; convince your friends and your artists. Get out of the bubble.
If we start tunneling through the phone lines, governments can just cut the cables there too (except for "official" uses of course). Ground-based communication in general is trickier with Burma due to low resources and dense jungle.
Satellites are a good idea, and they are already being used to document Myanmar atrocities. Tech isn't good enough to get detailed accounts of the protests (only stuff the people are actually *protesting* like the civilian relocations and shelling of villages), but it's a good start.
Slashdot Mirror
See, now this I will never understand. Bad articles do not make good articles less valuable, or even less trusted. Now, people will never trust a Wikipedia article as much as a true, unilateral source, but that's because of the nature of Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with random trash articles no one ever sees anyway.
And how do you know that "no one" ever sees them anyway? Well, they haven't been corrected yet. Wikipedia is self correcting. If information is valuable enough to be looked up, it will be valuable enough to correct.
Deleting them takes far less effort, and most of them wouldn't be missed.Honestly, does it take that much more effort to tag something as "unreliable" as it does to delete them?
...before we ask so what?
The only real substance in TFA is the quoted statistics for an increase in pedophilia-related arrests.
Thing is, the internet is a great tool for arrests as well as the spread of pedophilia. IP addresses, idiots posting personal info online, the fact that it is as easy to be a cop pretending to be a child as it is for a pedophile to enter a chatroom and chat up real kids.
Why don't we instead simply agree that while this state of affairs may be the case, it isn't the "fault" of the internet?
Because it may not be the case. No matter how much we may talk about "predisposition" and "catalysts" it's just talking out of our asses unless we know specifics. How many crack-pot psychology theories have been spread around over the years because some yahoos spun a story and everyone just nodded along?
Because it's not politics season without another Swiftboat controversy.
1) A business can have excess in the bank and still be "failing." MS in particular has *always* made it a priority to save for future expansions (so a lot of that excess existed before pre-Ballmer). This means nothing if they can't turn profits *now.*
2) GW isn't responsible for putting the US into debt. He is responsible for the huge *deficit* (a year-by-year total, currently in the high billions), and threatens to take existing debt to record highs, but the trillion-dollar-debt was more or less inherited from Reagan.
Okay, so you're willing to take that "chance." That's all fine and good. But if you "win" and Microsoft isn't a "natural monopoly?" You won't be able to tell the difference, because they'll *still* be controlling everything and screwing you over.
"Natural monopoly" only has meaning when there *are* anti-trust laws in effect. "Unnatural" monopolies (like Microsoft may be) are only broken up when anti-trust laws say so. Otherwise, they strangle any and all competition in the cradle.
May I suggest another roleplaying system? If your focus is on storytelling and social combat, you're better off with a combat-light system (such as a White Wolf game, Dogs in the Vineyard, or a random Steve Jackson RPG)
As for me, I am reserving judgement. I happen to *like* combat, and though I usually streamline stuff (grappling) I like to play it straight; I usually find that once we know all the rules, then we can go to town and throw out encounters that would normally take 2 hours because of all the errata (except we either know it, or we know enough to fake it quickly)
Their desires and passions will be dictated by us. If we want them to be pacifistic, we can program them to that effect, using a priority system. Emphasis on "if."
Our strongest, "highest priority" desires are arranged according to what will lead to our survival and reproduction. But what really defines that for a robot? Robots can exist forever, in theory, but that doesn't mean we'll build them so that they *do.* If we make an identical robot each time the old is destroyed, we could say that, in effect, the robot has "reproduced." In other words, a robot's "evolutionary success" is determined by us, who built them.
So what combination of "desire" and "passions" will lead to "evolutionary success?" It depends on their purpose. Some will be servitile, others will be irreverent. Some may even be borderline sociopathic (by our standards). Some will be bigots and treat a race of humans as "superior" to another.
So I believe that a robot's mind will resemble a humans', but there will be areas in which they do not resemble us at all. Including a stark diversity stemming from purpose (which, who knows, given our advances in genetics, may already exist in humans by that point)
Come on, first you're claiming that men die more often then women, then saying, "well, even if there WERE more women dying than men it would be okay because they'd be pandering to the heterosexual men?" Take one claim and stick to it, please. And you can point out exceptions to the rule all you want, but in general: heroism *does* matter. Men don't get stuffed in fridges; they die in combat against a powerful foe. If they get crippled, it only serves to launch a story in which they overcome their debilitation and win the day. Rarely, if ever, are they victims. Women are more often truly "broken" (although this trend is stronger among non-hero females, eg. relatives) What men and women are "supposed" to do has nothing to do with fridge logic.
"Large" and "well-established" do not translate into "harmful monopoly." A company has to be actively stifling competition in order to be subject to anti-trust suits. Microsoft's argument is that someday along the way, Google can use its power to stifle competition. Well I don't buy that yet.
Jack Thompson is on trial for actively and willingly making a mockery of the justice system. I don't care what your agenda is or how much you believe in it; the zeroth rule of social change is: no matter what happens, you act like a goddamned adult. Jack Thompson's multiple antics, both in and out of court (threatening emails to satirists, his little gay porn stunt, etc) show that he does not possess the maturity to babysit a five-year-old, let alone make important decisions in a court of law.
"Fighting for what you believe in" does not give you license to act like a moron.
Things like "reversible time" were built into some early games implicitly, such as Zelda (screw up a puzzle? Leave and come back and you're golden), or explicitly, such as in Lufia 2 (1998), which literally had a room-reset spell you could cast. Other early Final Fantasy games (FF5, 1992, I believe is the earliest) had time spells that let you restart battles as if you'd never fought them.
People are probably more likely to "socialize" with a robot if they can put it in its own separate category easily. Interacting with a non-human intelligence yet human container is bound to be disturbing (it's one of the sources of the uncanny valley)
It's not the *customers* who don't want to know how a computer works--its the manufacturers themselves who have a vested interest in keeping them ignorant of the details. Want to replace your HD? Bring it over to our "specialized professional" and we'll fix it for you. Oh, and if you open that new laptop of yours, you'll void the warranty; we all know you're too stupid to replace the fan yourself. Bring it to our professional. Oh, and we'll install Windows Vista too--it's the new best thing. Paradoxically, it's the large amount of purposefully ignorant people that offer hope for IT as a non-suck career (at least, IT in India)
Dilbert's killed more IT careerists than outsourcing ever will!
That's why they always use a baseline with those things. But if pain is involved, the situation changes.
Sure, and I challenge everyone on /. to jump up and down at the same time. We can cause an earthquake!
Boycotting is not "action." It simply makes those who practice it feel better about their perceived lack of power. One person, or even one website with its users making a personal choice, is not even a blip on the radar. It is really no better than whining.
If you want to do something about the injustices in the world, take real action. Spread the word beyond Slashdot; convince your friends and your artists. Get out of the bubble.
If we start tunneling through the phone lines, governments can just cut the cables there too (except for "official" uses of course). Ground-based communication in general is trickier with Burma due to low resources and dense jungle. Satellites are a good idea, and they are already being used to document Myanmar atrocities. Tech isn't good enough to get detailed accounts of the protests (only stuff the people are actually *protesting* like the civilian relocations and shelling of villages), but it's a good start.