You're right, we should just be bemoaning the murder of a woman we don't know anything about instead how it will affect something relevant to actual nerd interests on a nerd website.
Seriously, I would mod you down if I had points because of how much of a shit post that was. You shitty kind of moralists are the biggest wankers in the world.
but, as some people are going to say, there is certainly a large part of reasonable doubt.
Truthfully, though, that's not the standard people are sent to jail for. The standard is whether the jury merely thinks the person(s) did it. Who is the jury? Random elements of the hoi polloi, the bigoted the better.
1) Fix the stupid nerd dick-waving bureaucracy 2) Realize that the very premise of the wikipedia allows the weirdos and ideologues to use wikipedia as a pulpit and propaganda tool for their causes. Especially if those weirdos and ideologues are admins, like MONDO was.
And why not have a large red disclaimer, anyway? They would read it, if it wasn't hidden. Why don't you do that, instead of sticking a tiny link at the bottom that no one is going to look at (I even forgot it was there even though I'd read the disclaimer multiple times) and then blame people for not going over the website with a fine-tooth comb?
You wiki admins are lunatics. You defend wikipedia like it's a religious institution--and in some ways, it is, and you being part of its clergy, you have the most investment in it.
BitTorrent, the company, has no say over how people use bittorrent/bittorrent-inspired clients on any other networks. Whether the company says Comcast has a right to police its own network. Technically, they do, but not in a way that is misleading the consumer--companies need to be up front about what they are offering, and Comcast has both broken access to the internet on on BT client in a manner beyond what one obviously expects through normal internet operation, and Comcast has lied all the way about it. It's not a net neutrality issue, it's a contractual issue. If someone sells you a car that they say works great turns out to have a shot engine and they knew about it, then that is misleading the consumer.
Regardless of that, though, Comcast just wants the general public and politicians to think that by getting some sort of acknowledge from the company that now makes the BT client/runs the official network, or the bittorrent company site.
It says nothing of all non-Bittorent-the-company sites. This, again, is just a diversion, a trick to play on the general public.
You can lament how stupid people are all you want, but sticking a a tiny link to a disclaimer at the bottom is like arguing EULAS are legally enforceable. You're being ridiculous; people are going to go where the information is and then move on, not browse the legal info and disclaimers at the bottom.
Readers should always think, but thinking doesn't instantly let you sort bogus facts from non-bogus facts. That's why people visit the wikipedia in the first place--to get information. Quite often, they don't know what is true and what isn't.
You can ignore everything said, and you can ignore how your own analogy shows the downsides of wikipedia.
It's like releasing software from CVS HEAD as a public release and then calling users stupid for not knowing what is a bug and what isn't!
And what I said about Google is irrelevant; people look for information, they find wikipedia; wikipedia takes very lax precautions towards the validity of information and often takes a backseat towards valid information in favor of the rules and bureaucracy created by lonely nerds that want to run something, even at the expense of supposed goals of their project!
So yeah, David, you can continually throw out strawman to attack me, or you can actually address something. You wikipedians have an almost religious dogma towards wikipedia. I suspect it may be because on the wiki, you are an admin; you have more power on wikipedia than you do anywhere else, especially compared to real life, so you feel the need to defend it.
You can say, "oh, don't trust the wiki ever!" but then if that's the case it makes wikipedia pointless.
When the rules aren't working, you break them. Wikipedia was allowing false, occasionally even slanderous information, and I'm supposed to sit back and let the "community" handle it?
If a small group of people can continually edit in dangerous lies and bullshit, and the rules shield them, then the rules are wrong. Playing along with a silly bureaucracy like Wikipedia isn't going to get anywhere.
EXACTLY! The fact that Gerard (not surprised to see him here) makes such an analogy is interesting, because you don't post untried and untested software to the general public, and you don't generally want to post unreviewed information to the public.
His analogy works beautifully, but it highlights wikipedia's flaws, not their strengths.
I'm much the same way, however, I feel compelled to fix errors when I see them and know they are errors.
I used to edit wikipedia but wikipedians and the bureaucracy that it really is turned me off to it long ago.
I was attacked, insulted, people tried to get me banned, etc, all because I took a stand against wackjobs and quacks, and yes, I did break the rules doing so because the rules were allowing nutcases to post false information to the public and get away with it.
What a very good analogy! I already sort-of addressed it, so I suppose that's yet another wikipedian form response to a complaint.
Yeah, and I'll expand on that analogy. Wikipedia is geared towards the normal reader. Do a google search, and you'll often find wikipedia at the top.
Do normal users run software straight from CVS? No, because normal users don't try to look for and find bugs, they're there for the software. Wikipedia is like software straight from CVS HEAD released directly to the public--they're not trying to find errors, they're trying to find information.
HOWEVER, software doesn't have ideologues (well, okay, it does, but not in this way...) edit in a bugfix only to have it reverted by someone who thinks the program-breaking bug is a "feature". And if it does, you have problems, and it's typically the person blocking the bugfix that should be punished, not the guy trying to push the bugfix.
Wikipedians like to think that given enough time, the wikipedia will be perfect, and use this to brush off complaints of someone seeing factually incorrect information.
This, however, doesn't really fly; whether it could one day be perfect is irrelevant when people are seeing false or misleading information in the *now*. People aren't going to constantly check up on a page. Any misinformation in the now is "damaging" as it tells people incorrect things. That's true of all media, but the fact that it can be changed on the page later doesn't diminish the fact that everyone who sees it in the now is getting (and possibly spreading) incorrect information--just like a newspaper that makes an error. Unlike a newspaper, however, you often have complete crazies and idiots edit wikipedia and I've seen that information stay on there for a long time or until I had to correct it--things that should have been caught long ago.
Additionally, not only are corrections made to wikipedia but errors are constantly introduced as well. It'll never be perfect precisely because, to be direct, IDIOTS edit the wikipedia frequently throwing in nonsense and bullshit, often those with an ideological bent and don't know how to be objective.
And often, if errors are "fixed" they error-fixer doesn't realize that it was nonsense to begin with! I once saw a circular reference on Michael Shermer's article get changed to an outside reference like it should have, but it didn't change the fact that the "information" was misusing Shermer's words and meaning completely out of context, possibly out of the original writer's ideological bias.
And if you got a true nutcase on your hands, they'll just edit it back in. I don't know if these rules are still in effect, but back when I edited wikipedia I was watching a real lunatic edit in bizarre stuff on an article. When I sought help on their IRC channel they told me not to worry and let the community deal with it. Since they didn't seem to care, I waited and saw it still there a month later.
Additionally, I would edit the page but was not allowed to revert over three times per day, as per the rules at that time. His information was obviously bogus, talking about people with no brains in their heads still acting normally (no joke!), angels, conspiracies, etc, some really weird websites he was citing. And when I edited over three times anyway, because hey, it was PURE NONSENSE, I got reprimanded for breaking the rules. The page got locked after awhile--on HIS reversion, the one with his bias and nonsense, and in IRC they just joked about the page always being locked on the wrong edit.
They don't really have a concern for the truth. They're roleplaying a bureaucracy there. It's run by people who want to make a name for themselves, to feel like they have power over something, and to bludgeon other people with their own POV biases.
Eventually time did fix the article in question, so I suppose I won out in the end, but that doesn't change the fact how they, at least in the past, dealt with wrong information and basically jerked around good editors.
And before some relativistic wikipedia comes in and says that the other guy probably thought the same of me, know that I was citing mainstream science while this guy was editing in bizarre theories, talked about "protoscience", he was a true crank.
The article was "scientific skepticism", by the way.
May I add that NASA, at least currently, doesn't even mention this?
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/
Where do they get this info, if this isn't anywhere on NASA?
But you are painting people too black and white; much of human behavior (and emotional states) is contextual. While you can say someone is an introvert or shy, that does not mean they are always introverted in every situation or mood or likewise shy in every social situation.
I'll be honest: I'm pretty much a recluse. I am not satisfied by human contact. Social gatherings drain me. HOWEVER, I use IM very frequently, and I enjoyed playing WoW and was an (in)famous ass in my guild and on my server.
People can be both introverted and shy and still be more extroverted in certain places or situations (I was a huge introvert in high school but I still spoke up and stuff in a few classes where I felt more at ease), such as online where one is anonymous they are far more likely to be outspoken and aggressive, especially since the internet is largely a text-based world as opposed to "real-life" where it's verbal and visual. To many people it doesn't even *feel* like real social interaction. It doesn't for me, which is probably why I enjoy IM and such.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't payback a bitch?
But who will attack the darkness with a Lumos spell?
I think your lack of brain power is in poor taste.
You're right, we should just be bemoaning the murder of a woman we don't know anything about instead how it will affect something relevant to actual nerd interests on a nerd website.
Seriously, I would mod you down if I had points because of how much of a shit post that was. You shitty kind of moralists are the biggest wankers in the world.
Most cases are rather dull and often more clear-cut than this. But the ones that are, flaws in the jury system shine through.
Look at people getting out of jail after being exonerated on DNA evidence, many of them being minorities, as one example.
...Duh? Doesn't change the fact that it's not exactly the best and brightest on the jury.
but, as some people are going to say, there is certainly a large part of reasonable doubt.
Truthfully, though, that's not the standard people are sent to jail for. The standard is whether the jury merely thinks the person(s) did it. Who is the jury? Random elements of the hoi polloi, the bigoted the better.
That is, of course, if they are assuming that the networks involved is the "official" bittorrent download site; I may have misread the article.
The solution is
1) Fix the stupid nerd dick-waving bureaucracy
2) Realize that the very premise of the wikipedia allows the weirdos and ideologues to use wikipedia as a pulpit and propaganda tool for their causes. Especially if those weirdos and ideologues are admins, like MONDO was.
And why not have a large red disclaimer, anyway? They would read it, if it wasn't hidden. Why don't you do that, instead of sticking a tiny link at the bottom that no one is going to look at (I even forgot it was there even though I'd read the disclaimer multiple times) and then blame people for not going over the website with a fine-tooth comb?
You wiki admins are lunatics. You defend wikipedia like it's a religious institution--and in some ways, it is, and you being part of its clergy, you have the most investment in it.
This is a publicity move.
BitTorrent, the company, has no say over how people use bittorrent/bittorrent-inspired clients on any other networks. Whether the company says Comcast has a right to police its own network. Technically, they do, but not in a way that is misleading the consumer--companies need to be up front about what they are offering, and Comcast has both broken access to the internet on on BT client in a manner beyond what one obviously expects through normal internet operation, and Comcast has lied all the way about it. It's not a net neutrality issue, it's a contractual issue. If someone sells you a car that they say works great turns out to have a shot engine and they knew about it, then that is misleading the consumer.
Regardless of that, though, Comcast just wants the general public and politicians to think that by getting some sort of acknowledge from the company that now makes the BT client/runs the official network, or the bittorrent company site.
It says nothing of all non-Bittorent-the-company sites. This, again, is just a diversion, a trick to play on the general public.
What happened to your CVS HEAD argument, David?!
You can lament how stupid people are all you want, but sticking a a tiny link to a disclaimer at the bottom is like arguing EULAS are legally enforceable. You're being ridiculous; people are going to go where the information is and then move on, not browse the legal info and disclaimers at the bottom.
Readers should always think, but thinking doesn't instantly let you sort bogus facts from non-bogus facts. That's why people visit the wikipedia in the first place--to get information. Quite often, they don't know what is true and what isn't.
You can ignore everything said, and you can ignore how your own analogy shows the downsides of wikipedia.
It's like releasing software from CVS HEAD as a public release and then calling users stupid for not knowing what is a bug and what isn't!
And what I said about Google is irrelevant; people look for information, they find wikipedia; wikipedia takes very lax precautions towards the validity of information and often takes a backseat towards valid information in favor of the rules and bureaucracy created by lonely nerds that want to run something, even at the expense of supposed goals of their project!
So yeah, David, you can continually throw out strawman to attack me, or you can actually address something. You wikipedians have an almost religious dogma towards wikipedia. I suspect it may be because on the wiki, you are an admin; you have more power on wikipedia than you do anywhere else, especially compared to real life, so you feel the need to defend it.
You can say, "oh, don't trust the wiki ever!" but then if that's the case it makes wikipedia pointless.
When the rules aren't working, you break them. Wikipedia was allowing false, occasionally even slanderous information, and I'm supposed to sit back and let the "community" handle it?
If a small group of people can continually edit in dangerous lies and bullshit, and the rules shield them, then the rules are wrong. Playing along with a silly bureaucracy like Wikipedia isn't going to get anywhere.
EXACTLY! The fact that Gerard (not surprised to see him here) makes such an analogy is interesting, because you don't post untried and untested software to the general public, and you don't generally want to post unreviewed information to the public.
His analogy works beautifully, but it highlights wikipedia's flaws, not their strengths.
I'm much the same way, however, I feel compelled to fix errors when I see them and know they are errors.
I used to edit wikipedia but wikipedians and the bureaucracy that it really is turned me off to it long ago.
I was attacked, insulted, people tried to get me banned, etc, all because I took a stand against wackjobs and quacks, and yes, I did break the rules doing so because the rules were allowing nutcases to post false information to the public and get away with it.
Excuse me, I meant "software doesn't have people edit in a bugfix to have it be reverted by an ideologue".
What a very good analogy! I already sort-of addressed it, so I suppose that's yet another wikipedian form response to a complaint.
Yeah, and I'll expand on that analogy. Wikipedia is geared towards the normal reader. Do a google search, and you'll often find wikipedia at the top.
Do normal users run software straight from CVS? No, because normal users don't try to look for and find bugs, they're there for the software. Wikipedia is like software straight from CVS HEAD released directly to the public--they're not trying to find errors, they're trying to find information.
HOWEVER, software doesn't have ideologues (well, okay, it does, but not in this way...) edit in a bugfix only to have it reverted by someone who thinks the program-breaking bug is a "feature". And if it does, you have problems, and it's typically the person blocking the bugfix that should be punished, not the guy trying to push the bugfix.
Wikipedians like to think that given enough time, the wikipedia will be perfect, and use this to brush off complaints of someone seeing factually incorrect information.
This, however, doesn't really fly; whether it could one day be perfect is irrelevant when people are seeing false or misleading information in the *now*. People aren't going to constantly check up on a page. Any misinformation in the now is "damaging" as it tells people incorrect things. That's true of all media, but the fact that it can be changed on the page later doesn't diminish the fact that everyone who sees it in the now is getting (and possibly spreading) incorrect information--just like a newspaper that makes an error. Unlike a newspaper, however, you often have complete crazies and idiots edit wikipedia and I've seen that information stay on there for a long time or until I had to correct it--things that should have been caught long ago.
Additionally, not only are corrections made to wikipedia but errors are constantly introduced as well. It'll never be perfect precisely because, to be direct, IDIOTS edit the wikipedia frequently throwing in nonsense and bullshit, often those with an ideological bent and don't know how to be objective.
And often, if errors are "fixed" they error-fixer doesn't realize that it was nonsense to begin with! I once saw a circular reference on Michael Shermer's article get changed to an outside reference like it should have, but it didn't change the fact that the "information" was misusing Shermer's words and meaning completely out of context, possibly out of the original writer's ideological bias.
And if you got a true nutcase on your hands, they'll just edit it back in. I don't know if these rules are still in effect, but back when I edited wikipedia I was watching a real lunatic edit in bizarre stuff on an article. When I sought help on their IRC channel they told me not to worry and let the community deal with it. Since they didn't seem to care, I waited and saw it still there a month later.
Additionally, I would edit the page but was not allowed to revert over three times per day, as per the rules at that time. His information was obviously bogus, talking about people with no brains in their heads still acting normally (no joke!), angels, conspiracies, etc, some really weird websites he was citing. And when I edited over three times anyway, because hey, it was PURE NONSENSE, I got reprimanded for breaking the rules. The page got locked after awhile--on HIS reversion, the one with his bias and nonsense, and in IRC they just joked about the page always being locked on the wrong edit.
They don't really have a concern for the truth. They're roleplaying a bureaucracy there. It's run by people who want to make a name for themselves, to feel like they have power over something, and to bludgeon other people with their own POV biases.
Eventually time did fix the article in question, so I suppose I won out in the end, but that doesn't change the fact how they, at least in the past, dealt with wrong information and basically jerked around good editors.
And before some relativistic wikipedia comes in and says that the other guy probably thought the same of me, know that I was citing mainstream science while this guy was editing in bizarre theories, talked about "protoscience", he was a true crank.
The article was "scientific skepticism", by the way.
I initially read this as being, "Why a Good Date Can be Hard to Find Online". Hell, I could have told you that! But alas...
And where on THEIR website is this mentioned...?
And this:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ip?2.2e-05
May I add that NASA, at least currently, doesn't even mention this? http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/ Where do they get this info, if this isn't anywhere on NASA?
What? That's not what it's saying, at all.
But you are painting people too black and white; much of human behavior (and emotional states) is contextual. While you can say someone is an introvert or shy, that does not mean they are always introverted in every situation or mood or likewise shy in every social situation.
I'll be honest: I'm pretty much a recluse. I am not satisfied by human contact. Social gatherings drain me. HOWEVER, I use IM very frequently, and I enjoyed playing WoW and was an (in)famous ass in my guild and on my server.
People can be both introverted and shy and still be more extroverted in certain places or situations (I was a huge introvert in high school but I still spoke up and stuff in a few classes where I felt more at ease), such as online where one is anonymous they are far more likely to be outspoken and aggressive, especially since the internet is largely a text-based world as opposed to "real-life" where it's verbal and visual. To many people it doesn't even *feel* like real social interaction. It doesn't for me, which is probably why I enjoy IM and such.
"Maintenance of the public good", I see a socialist right there.