You're not actually allowed to publish a page and self-cite unless it's a professional publication or the information is only about yourself.
But this is indeed one of Wikipedia's flaws. Certain topics are typically discussed only in blogs, message boards, and other sources that aren't considered legitimate by Wikipedia standards. Every so often an acceptable Wikipedia source happens to mention one of those topics, usually without researching it much, and so the Wikipedia article gets written based on those random mentions.
And you can't even delete it for being incorrect. "Verifiability, not truth" ends up pretty bad when you have things that are verifiable but false.
I never quite understood the claims that Somalia has no government. Isn't "warlord" just another term for "government, run as dictatorship, controlling a small area, without membership in the United Nations"? The only difference between Saudi Arabia and a Somali warlord is a matter of scale and the fact that the Saudis have more money.
This is dumping--selling a product below cost (in this case free) to kill competition.
Slashdot posters have already explained how this network is going to be bad for privacy. It's also going to lead to Google and gmail-like situations where the company can shut down the service or make changes at any arbitrary time and in any arbitrary way because you are getting it for free. Of course, the fact that they are dumping the service means that no competitor could offer a service which costs money but doesn't have these disadvantages.
If your intention is to get the latest news, your script is not going to be pressing F5 enough to cause trouble unless you're mindbogglingly stupid in a way that happens by chance to exactly resemble someone whose intention is to attack.
But I suspect your question is not really "what if it's my intention to use a script to get news". Rather your question is "what if my intention is really to do a DOS attack, but I say that my intention is just to get news?" To which the answer is "they're not stupid. They'll infer your intention from your actions; the fact that they can't read your mind doesn't mean you can lie about your intentions and get away with it.
That doesn't explain why people who were locked out of their accounts were told to send in drivers' licenses or other real-world documents that wouldn't have psuedonyms on them.
... the result being that Congressmen will be people who either are independently wealthy, or are doing backdoor deals which will get them lots of pay, benefits, and retirement money.
Of course that happens anyway, but you really don't want to encourage it even more.
Any time someone claims that something is the fastest growing anything, it's almost certainly BS. Things which grow in numbers normally follow a curve where they grow slowly, then grow faster as they can more rapidly spread, then grow slowly again as they approach saturation. And that's true even if the total size at saturation is tiny--there's still a point in the cycle where the growth rate is big.
So "___ is the fastest growing ___" just means "___ is at a different point in the cycle than its competitors, not that it's doing well or that it can be favorably compared to competitors with lower growth rates. Without some sort of statement about absolute numbers (or, in this case, comparison of absolute numbers to other technologies), rather than growth rates, claiming that something is growing fast is meaningless. If there are twenty people in the country who want something, the point where it goes from 5 to 15 of them is rapid growth, but the numbers aren't high, nor is the growth sustainable after saturation.
3D was a brief fad in the 1950's, with another brief fad in the 1980's.
We're already at the "it's 20 years later" stage and I could argue that what you say has actually happened to some degree; the current influx of 3D movies has already lasted longer than either fad, and the technology to make them is *much* better than it was back then.
First of all, the world is not the Internet. There may not be many pro-religion discussions on Slashdot, but there may be in the real world (especially depending on where you live.)
Second, people don't just "bring up their beliefs" for issues like abortion or homosexuality. Those beliefs are not incidental to those issues, they are the main reason for their stand.
Those people going door to door are not so much being sent out to convert others as they are being sent out to force them to make a public commitment and expenditure of time for their religion. Any converts they get are a bonus.
If you actually get intellectual enough to seriously question their religion, that would defeat the purpose, since instead of being forced to commit to the religion, they could be pushed farther away.
I'm reminded of Kitty Genovese. The popular wisdom about this case, exacerbated by a bad New York Times article, turned out to be pretty much false even though it has been used to denounce society for decades.
Jesus didn't die on a cross because he thought the number of people who die on crosses needed to be increased. He did (at least according to the story) because redeeming sins by dying on the cross was only something he could do.
If you have a unique skill (as Jesus does in the Jesus story) and want to use it to help people, by all means use it. Dying for people's sins cannot be bought with an extra hours salary. Food for the homeless can.
It is a peaceful protest. They're not shooting anyone, after all.
The deceit is in the idea that a "peaceful protest" is legal, or that a "peaceful protest" is harmless. There are all sorts of peaceful protests which are neither. Gathering in a rally of 10000 people in pointy hats where you pledge not to hire someone of a different race is a peaceful protest as long as no guns or burning crosses come out.
If you threw out an antique, you have no claim when someone picks it from the trash. But if you lose it, and the finder knows that the antique is yours, they're obligated to return it.
The museum didn't say "oh, it's a moon rock, we don't need that any more" and put in the trash deliberately. They lost it. It still belongs to the museum.
And that's assuming it was even lost. It's very suspicious that the guy's foster father was a curator and he just happened to be the one to find the rock. He probably stole it and said "I found it" as an excuse.
Yes, and the people who make it know this and are being asses about not changing the name. They decided to have their little joke, no matter how bad it is for public relations and for actually getting people to adopt free software.
"The Palestinians" is not a country. I'm sure Israel would be willing to return the land to Jordan and Egypt.
all countries having agreed to a peace treaty have gotten their land back.
Of course, Jordan and Egypt don't want it. They're not going to give the Palestinians citizenship and they don't feel like being held officially responsible for attacks by the Palestinians.
I hear that if you vote for Obama in 2008, we will no longer have to deal with Bush's wars. Try it, maybe it'll work. He is promising change, after all.
It's "active coverup of a pedo ring" in exactly the same way that not searching everyone's computers is active coverup of a pedophile: there are pedophiles who can't be caught because their existence is hidden from you, but if you conduct a fishing expedition to such a degree that there is no such thing as private information any more, you can catch them.
Assange pretty much released an indiscriminate chunk of secret documents. Nothing he did was aimed at catching pedophiles; the fact that it revealed some pedophiles was a side effect of the fact that there are a certain number of pedophiles in any large group (whether a group of government workers or a group of private citizens) and if you do a massive enough release you'll catch a couple.
So this isn't some "think of the children" bullshit here, we are talking about a company working for and with ties to the US government actively snatching little fricking kids and selling them for fucktoys.
You're phrasing that to make it sound like secret government documents reveal real pedophiles, but secret personal documents don't. That's not true You really could save a number of children from being fucktoys if you somehow managed to hack into a zillion personal computers and posted everything to the Internet. It's not just an excuse--there actually would be children saved from sexual molestation by doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not actually allowed to publish a page and self-cite unless it's a professional publication or the information is only about yourself.
But this is indeed one of Wikipedia's flaws. Certain topics are typically discussed only in blogs, message boards, and other sources that aren't considered legitimate by Wikipedia standards. Every so often an acceptable Wikipedia source happens to mention one of those topics, usually without researching it much, and so the Wikipedia article gets written based on those random mentions.
And you can't even delete it for being incorrect. "Verifiability, not truth" ends up pretty bad when you have things that are verifiable but false.
Saudi Arabia has Mecca, which means every Muslim wants to visit it since they are required to go to Mecca once in their lifetime.
It's sort of like the oil--it gives the Saudis a windfall which they can get just by being there without doing anything to improve their country.
I never quite understood the claims that Somalia has no government. Isn't "warlord" just another term for "government, run as dictatorship, controlling a small area, without membership in the United Nations"? The only difference between Saudi Arabia and a Somali warlord is a matter of scale and the fact that the Saudis have more money.
This is dumping--selling a product below cost (in this case free) to kill competition.
Slashdot posters have already explained how this network is going to be bad for privacy. It's also going to lead to Google and gmail-like situations where the company can shut down the service or make changes at any arbitrary time and in any arbitrary way because you are getting it for free. Of course, the fact that they are dumping the service means that no competitor could offer a service which costs money but doesn't have these disadvantages.
If your intention is to get the latest news, your script is not going to be pressing F5 enough to cause trouble unless you're mindbogglingly stupid in a way that happens by chance to exactly resemble someone whose intention is to attack.
But I suspect your question is not really "what if it's my intention to use a script to get news". Rather your question is "what if my intention is really to do a DOS attack, but I say that my intention is just to get news?" To which the answer is "they're not stupid. They'll infer your intention from your actions; the fact that they can't read your mind doesn't mean you can lie about your intentions and get away with it.
That doesn't explain why people who were locked out of their accounts were told to send in drivers' licenses or other real-world documents that wouldn't have psuedonyms on them.
You can boycott the game and not pirate it. However, the company will still point to their declining sales as evidence of piracy.
... the result being that Congressmen will be people who either are independently wealthy, or are doing backdoor deals which will get them lots of pay, benefits, and retirement money.
Of course that happens anyway, but you really don't want to encourage it even more.
Any time someone claims that something is the fastest growing anything, it's almost certainly BS. Things which grow in numbers normally follow a curve where they grow slowly, then grow faster as they can more rapidly spread, then grow slowly again as they approach saturation. And that's true even if the total size at saturation is tiny--there's still a point in the cycle where the growth rate is big.
So "___ is the fastest growing ___" just means "___ is at a different point in the cycle than its competitors, not that it's doing well or that it can be favorably compared to competitors with lower growth rates. Without some sort of statement about absolute numbers (or, in this case, comparison of absolute numbers to other technologies), rather than growth rates, claiming that something is growing fast is meaningless. If there are twenty people in the country who want something, the point where it goes from 5 to 15 of them is rapid growth, but the numbers aren't high, nor is the growth sustainable after saturation.
And the oil and gas industries only have a small fraction of the money of governments.
Urban legend alert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
3D was a brief fad in the 1950's, with another brief fad in the 1980's.
We're already at the "it's 20 years later" stage and I could argue that what you say has actually happened to some degree; the current influx of 3D movies has already lasted longer than either fad, and the technology to make them is *much* better than it was back then.
Isn't it just as unethical to run the ad for Facebook's competitor in the first place?
Facebook just banned him for no reason. They didn't actually say "we're banning you for advertising a competitor".
If Facebook isn't willing to admit the reason why they banned him, then Facebook doesn't get the benefit of being able to claim the reason is ethical.
First of all, the world is not the Internet. There may not be many pro-religion discussions on Slashdot, but there may be in the real world (especially depending on where you live.)
Second, people don't just "bring up their beliefs" for issues like abortion or homosexuality. Those beliefs are not incidental to those issues, they are the main reason for their stand.
Those people going door to door are not so much being sent out to convert others as they are being sent out to force them to make a public commitment and expenditure of time for their religion. Any converts they get are a bonus.
If you actually get intellectual enough to seriously question their religion, that would defeat the purpose, since instead of being forced to commit to the religion, they could be pushed farther away.
I'm reminded of Kitty Genovese. The popular wisdom about this case, exacerbated by a bad New York Times article, turned out to be pretty much false even though it has been used to denounce society for decades.
Jesus didn't die on a cross because he thought the number of people who die on crosses needed to be increased. He did (at least according to the story) because redeeming sins by dying on the cross was only something he could do.
If you have a unique skill (as Jesus does in the Jesus story) and want to use it to help people, by all means use it. Dying for people's sins cannot be bought with an extra hours salary. Food for the homeless can.
It is a peaceful protest. They're not shooting anyone, after all.
The deceit is in the idea that a "peaceful protest" is legal, or that a "peaceful protest" is harmless. There are all sorts of peaceful protests which are neither. Gathering in a rally of 10000 people in pointy hats where you pledge not to hire someone of a different race is a peaceful protest as long as no guns or burning crosses come out.
If you threw out an antique, you have no claim when someone picks it from the trash. But if you lose it, and the finder knows that the antique is yours, they're obligated to return it.
The museum didn't say "oh, it's a moon rock, we don't need that any more" and put in the trash deliberately. They lost it. It still belongs to the museum.
And that's assuming it was even lost. It's very suspicious that the guy's foster father was a curator and he just happened to be the one to find the rock. He probably stole it and said "I found it" as an excuse.
Yes, and the people who make it know this and are being asses about not changing the name. They decided to have their little joke, no matter how bad it is for public relations and for actually getting people to adopt free software.
"The Palestinians" is not a country. I'm sure Israel would be willing to return the land to Jordan and Egypt.
Of course, Jordan and Egypt don't want it. They're not going to give the Palestinians citizenship and they don't feel like being held officially responsible for attacks by the Palestinians.
People who chain themselves in front of abortion clinics are also "non violent protestors".
Protests don't magically become harmless because they are "non violent".
I hear that if you vote for Obama in 2008, we will no longer have to deal with Bush's wars. Try it, maybe it'll work. He is promising change, after all.
It's "active coverup of a pedo ring" in exactly the same way that not searching everyone's computers is active coverup of a pedophile: there are pedophiles who can't be caught because their existence is hidden from you, but if you conduct a fishing expedition to such a degree that there is no such thing as private information any more, you can catch them.
Assange pretty much released an indiscriminate chunk of secret documents. Nothing he did was aimed at catching pedophiles; the fact that it revealed some pedophiles was a side effect of the fact that there are a certain number of pedophiles in any large group (whether a group of government workers or a group of private citizens) and if you do a massive enough release you'll catch a couple.
You're phrasing that to make it sound like secret government documents reveal real pedophiles, but secret personal documents don't. That's not true You really could save a number of children from being fucktoys if you somehow managed to hack into a zillion personal computers and posted everything to the Internet. It's not just an excuse--there actually would be children saved from sexual molestation by doing this.
But it still wouldn't be good.
Military operations include activities other than shooting people with guns.