You've heard the expression "a little knowledge is dangerous" ? The reason for the danger is that those with a little knowledge don't know enough to know how little they know. Ditto with wikki: the vast majority of people editing simply don't know how poor their knowledge actually is.
That's the problem with the internet as a whole. Too many self-appointed experts. If you really want to be considered an expert on say Alexander Hamilton, go to school, get a PhD in history, make Alexander Hamilton the subject of your dissertation. Don't go the amateur route.
True, but I would argue that using a single source, including Britannica, is just an incredibly unwise thing to do in the first place. If it's important enough to matter you would be a fool to use a single source. Even the oh so holy Britannica has it's biases and omissions.
Nonsense. For many kinds of facts one source is enough. If I'm writing a paper on classical music, and need to know his dates of birth and death, I stop at Brittanica. Going further is an ineffective use of time.
I don't think you quite understand his criticism. He approached it as a reader--someone who wants to find some information about Alexander Hamilton. The information isn't accurate. Now "fix it" as a suggestion doesn't make sense. A reader who doesn't know about Alexander Hamilton, and goes there to learn about him, isn't going to have this information. If they did, they probably wouldn't have had to go there in the first place.
After 150 revisions, the article should be a lot better than it is. It's a completely valid point, and I haven't seen a single criticism beyond the Woody Allen defense ("You don't like it? Well that's just because you don't understand it.")
"Depending on your perspective, a sentence that ends in an interrobang either asks a question in an excited manner or expresses excitement in the form of a question."
Isn't that the coolest thing you've ever heard?!?
Re:this guy is just holding up a sign
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
Better than that, 900,000 songs x $250,000 (the maximum statutory fine for copyright violations) = two hundred and twenty five TRILLION dollars.
How does it "encourage creative development"? How much do you think the company is paying their academic idea generators? I doubt the people who come up with the ideas can do well on that kind of money.
How much would they get paid WITHOUT a patent system, though?
In the UK if you accuse someone of something in a way that could have harmful sideffects for them then that's slander/libel unless you can back up your accusations. Is this not true in the US?
The main difference is in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant. So you can use libel laws to prevent something getting published if the person who's going to do the publishing can't afford to contest it, and that happens a lot. And since the burden of proof is on the defendant, they'll have to have ironclad proof of what they're saying.
Secondly, in the US you generally have more latitude about what you can say about someone. Truth is a complete defense for libel, but it's not the only defense. Even if you say something untrue the other party still has to show damages and in some cases malice. Plus if the person's a public figure they get even less protection.
Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance?
So they can't screw you over by saying your work isn't up to quality? Seniority is objective, unless they're pathological liars who falsify records, it's going to be a little hard to say you only worked there 3 years when you've really been there 15.
There you will find a reference to SoundForge 4.5 and also a user called "Deepz0ne" who happen to be one of the founders of an audio software cracking group called Radium.
No, that's just Bob Deepzone (pronounced Deep-ZONE-ay). He works in the MS audio department.
Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our newspaper editors or television reporters would have you believe.
Unfortunately most of the population has always had a problem with that innocent until proven guilty thing, even before ubiquitous mass media. It's just human nature.
Thomas had 1 (one) year as a judge; prior to that he was a mid-level official in the Reagan administration, not even close to the rank of attorney general. The right-wingers feel they have been burnt by Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor, so they put right-wing fanatacism over actual judicial experience or legal scholarship.
But nowhere near 60% of the US population worked in dotcoms. Yes, there were a lot of pointless dotcoms formed that needed IT workers fast, but I doubt very much that in terms of actual numbers a significant amount of IT workers actually worked for actual dotcoms. Especially since dotcoms tended to cluster around only a few urban centers.
Uhh..wha...huh? Flamebait? I mean god knows plenty of my posts deserve that appellation, but this one could only offend members of Best Buy's marketing department. And people who work in marketing generally aren't smart enough to read slashdot (see, now THAT'S flamebait!).
Slashdot Mirror
until they can figure out how to stop creating sinkholes that open up under minivans with children inside.
Luddites.
Alright, now how he's supposed to make a living writing OSS? I mean, that's the whole point of his question.
You've heard the expression "a little knowledge is dangerous" ? The reason for the danger is that those with a little knowledge don't know enough to know how little they know. Ditto with wikki: the vast majority of people editing simply don't know how poor their knowledge actually is.
That's the problem with the internet as a whole. Too many self-appointed experts. If you really want to be considered an expert on say Alexander Hamilton, go to school, get a PhD in history, make Alexander Hamilton the subject of your dissertation. Don't go the amateur route.
True, but I would argue that using a single source, including Britannica, is just an incredibly unwise thing to do in the first place. If it's important enough to matter you would be a fool to use a single source. Even the oh so holy Britannica has it's biases and omissions.
Nonsense. For many kinds of facts one source is enough. If I'm writing a paper on classical music, and need to know his dates of birth and death, I stop at Brittanica. Going further is an ineffective use of time.
I don't think you quite understand his criticism. He approached it as a reader--someone who wants to find some information about Alexander Hamilton. The information isn't accurate. Now "fix it" as a suggestion doesn't make sense. A reader who doesn't know about Alexander Hamilton, and goes there to learn about him, isn't going to have this information. If they did, they probably wouldn't have had to go there in the first place.
After 150 revisions, the article should be a lot better than it is. It's a completely valid point, and I haven't seen a single criticism beyond the Woody Allen defense ("You don't like it? Well that's just because you don't understand it.")
Kind of hard to read this article at work with dumbass geekboy-Mrs. Claus fantasy pictures plastered everywhere.
Yeah, but I like a challenge.
"Depending on your perspective, a sentence that ends in an interrobang either asks a question in an excited manner or expresses excitement in the form of a question."
Isn't that the coolest thing you've ever heard?!?
Better than that, 900,000 songs x $250,000 (the maximum statutory fine for copyright violations) = two hundred and twenty five TRILLION dollars.
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious to know what sort of a gap Linux/BSD left behind that Sun felt the need to fill...
Well, Solaris does have a cooler name than either of them.
How does it "encourage creative development"? How much do you think the company is paying their academic idea generators? I doubt the people who come up with the ideas can do well on that kind of money.
How much would they get paid WITHOUT a patent system, though?
In the UK if you accuse someone of something in a way that could have harmful sideffects for them then that's slander/libel unless you can back up your accusations. Is this not true in the US?
The main difference is in the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant. So you can use libel laws to prevent something getting published if the person who's going to do the publishing can't afford to contest it, and that happens a lot. And since the burden of proof is on the defendant, they'll have to have ironclad proof of what they're saying.
Secondly, in the US you generally have more latitude about what you can say about someone. Truth is a complete defense for libel, but it's not the only defense. Even if you say something untrue the other party still has to show damages and in some cases malice. Plus if the person's a public figure they get even less protection.
Yep. Both Canada and the UK have ridiculous defamation laws; bring that up the next time a Canadian or Briton sneers at the American legal system.
Don't get your hopes up too early though.
Ok, I won't.
Uhhh, why on earth would I care one way or the either? Why would my hopes be raised?
Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance?
So they can't screw you over by saying your work isn't up to quality? Seniority is objective, unless they're pathological liars who falsify records, it's going to be a little hard to say you only worked there 3 years when you've really been there 15.
There you will find a reference to SoundForge 4.5 and also a user called "Deepz0ne" who happen to be one of the founders of an audio software cracking group called Radium.
No, that's just Bob Deepzone (pronounced Deep-ZONE-ay). He works in the MS audio department.
That is socially irresponsible behavior, and can be demonstrated so in a court of law.
Since when is being socially irresponsible a crime?
Also, if you left work after dark, lots of people would try to sell you, uh, things on your way to your car.
That's why people live and work in cities. Try getting that kind of convenience in a rural area.
It's another case of life imitating art.
"Art"?
Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our newspaper editors or television reporters would have you believe.
Unfortunately most of the population has always had a problem with that innocent until proven guilty thing, even before ubiquitous mass media. It's just human nature.
No idea, but I assume it just wasn't making enough money to be worth the cost developiing it. Quality is nice, but why take a loss?
Thomas had 1 (one) year as a judge; prior to that he was a mid-level official in the Reagan administration, not even close to the rank of attorney general. The right-wingers feel they have been burnt by Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor, so they put right-wing fanatacism over actual judicial experience or legal scholarship.
But nowhere near 60% of the US population worked in dotcoms. Yes, there were a lot of pointless dotcoms formed that needed IT workers fast, but I doubt very much that in terms of actual numbers a significant amount of IT workers actually worked for actual dotcoms. Especially since dotcoms tended to cluster around only a few urban centers.
Press any key? Where's the any key? Phew, all this computer hacking is making me thirsty. I think I'll order a Tab.
Uhh..wha...huh? Flamebait? I mean god knows plenty of my posts deserve that appellation, but this one could only offend members of Best Buy's marketing department. And people who work in marketing generally aren't smart enough to read slashdot (see, now THAT'S flamebait!).
Best Buy is alright for video games and movies. Their house brand monitors are decent and cheap, too.
Everything else I get elsewhere.