Things in Wikipedia are notable because they are in Wikipedia. Because non-notable articles are deleted.
And thus your definition is completely meaningless.
It's circular logic, but, although this may blow you mind, circular logic isn't always a bad thing. That was the point.
Actually circular reasoning is ALWAYS bad unless you think fallacious arguments are acceptable. You cannot use your own propositions to support your premise.
Yes it is, because being in Wikipedia is no longer an indication of noteworthiness.
So what? Other than to boost some elitist attitude I don't see why this even matters.
Please try reading my post before you reply so I don't have to repeat myself.
I have read your post. It's nonsensical and your logic is entirely circular.
The notable topics are still there, but being there no longer indicates that they are notable, so how do you tell the difference?
Through my own judgement? I don't need someone else to filter things for me, I have a functioning brain that can do that for me.
And why act like Wikipedia is the sole repository for all human knowledge?
Because that's what Jimmy Wales is trying to claim Wikipedia is supposed to be?
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation
One can not be the "sum of all human knowledge" without including the "sum of all human knowledge". I hate to break it to you, but the sum of all human knowledge contains vast amounts of things that you would call "non notable".
If your pet topic isn't included in Wikipedia, then go start your own Wiki for it (as lots of people already have for any number of specialized topics).
Ah yes the tired argument that if you are against the deletionist horde it must be because you've had some personal article deleted. Sorry, bro, that's just not true.
*facepalm* ISPs are not common carries and never have been. It's amazing how many idiots keep parroting this crap when a simple Google search would show you how wrong it is. The FCC long ago stated, and reaffirmed in 1998, that ISPs are not common carriers during what is called the "Computer Inquiries". The FCC stated that ISPs fall within a category called "enhanced services" which are unregulated.
All Google has to do is say to Oracle, or IBM, or anyone that tries to sue them for violating their ridiculous patents is this:
"Okay. How about we de-list all of your sites from our search engine, and block all of your IP space from using our search engine, or any of our other sites, like YouTube? Oh, and we'll renegotiate all of our peering agreements, so that we don't route any traffic from your networks over our network, too."
Yeah, and buy themselves and instant ticket to an anti-trust lawsuit? The people running Google aren't that dumb because their lawyers would be telling them the same thing.
I mean, Google isn't *required* to index anybody's site, or offer service to anyone it doesn't want.
What are you are and aren't allowed to do changes quite dramatically when you are the dominant player in the market. Such a move is clearly anti-competitive.
Any cases that go to court will already be dwarfed by the massive sums of money Android will have earned Google.
That's funny because I'm looking at Google's financial statements right now and a little over 7 billion in their revenue (or about 96.5% of all total revenue) comes from their Adsense programs and revenue generated from Google-owned websites. The other 3.5% of their revenue or about 254 million is in a category marked "other" and the bulk of that "other" revenue is from interest from investments. So, no, you are very much wrong about how Android is making them "massive sums of money" by Google's own financial statements.
On strong, broad patent is far more valuable than 100 weak, easily avoidable, narrow patents.
Not true at all. It's much easier to make your opponents defense much harder if you just barrage them with a flurry of patents rather than just a singular one.
It gets lost because having an article on Wikipedia is no longer a sign that the topic is notable.
So what? People who don't want to see the non-notable articles don't have to view them and the articles that they do deem "notable" are still there and are still just as accessible as they have always been. Nothing is "lost".
i think that you are the one employing moral relativism.
Then you must have a different definition of the word than others use.
Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions. Each of them is concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures: Descriptive relativism describes the way things are, without suggesting a way they ought to be. It seeks only to point out that people frequently disagree over what is the most 'moral' course of action. Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[1] The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".[2] Normative relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that, because there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others - even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[3] Most philosophers find that this position is incoherent, or at least that it is unclear how meta-ethical relativism can lead to 'ought' statements.[3]
trade embargoes always punish the average citizen and poor while the ruling class find ways around them.
The same could be said for almost any punishment that some people will always find ways around them. Does that mean we should never punish anyone for anything?
it is merely false to pretend that the US has some higher footing than other countries.
How does it not have a higher moral footing than Iran? Does the US stone raped women by saying they wanted it to happen and that it's really adultery? Does the US government put to death someone for being gay? Does the US government put to death or chop off the limbs of people for blasphemy? Is the US code of laws based on a backwards set of moral codes from a Middle Aged group of goat herders? Oh wait, it's not so it CLEARLY is better than Iran. Sorry, but your moral relativism stinks of bullshit.
But! But! Disregard the fact that Iran stones raped women, puts to death homosexuals, violently oppresses free speech and political demonstrations and has it's law system based on a backwards Middle Age set of moral codes, etc. Teh US has done bad things so it is clearly worse!!
If only Mozilla dedicated to the GNU/Linux version a tenth of the effort it dedicates to the Windows version
Yes, how dare they spend MORE time on the version that the vast majority of their users use rather than for the OS with the minority of users. How illogical of them!
The point isn't that a beta has bugs. It's the fact that despite claiming they are going to push this to RC and release soon it still has 100 hardblocking bugs. THAT is the news.
I seem to recall that Windows 98 had something on the order of 32,000 bugs a few months before release.
Yes, and Windows 98 was also a COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEM with far more complexity than a web browser. Imagine that, something with more complexity and more LOC than a less complex and smaller LOC piece of software has more bugs! *gasp* What insight!
Btw, what better way to celebrate virii than an add-infected site.
1) The term is 'viruses' not 'virii'. 2) The word you are thinking of is 'ads'. Unless you are somehow blocking a website that is infected with "addition" which makes little to no sense.
they're going to have to re-think what they want to do at least somewhat or be facing a tougher problem with ARM in the market in about 5 years.
This has been said multiple times every decade since the 90s. Intel isn't going anywhere and the supposed ARMageddon(TM) that is constantly predicted (first it was ARM desktops, then ARM laptops, then ARM netbooks, now it's supposed to be ARM phones and tablets) fails to materialize every time.
It's like saying there's more cyanide in ocean water than in a glass of cyanide, because there's more cyanide collectively in the ocean as a whole.
Huh?
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
Slashdot Mirror
Things in Wikipedia are notable because they are in Wikipedia. Because non-notable articles are deleted.
And thus your definition is completely meaningless.
It's circular logic, but, although this may blow you mind, circular logic isn't always a bad thing. That was the point.
Actually circular reasoning is ALWAYS bad unless you think fallacious arguments are acceptable. You cannot use your own propositions to support your premise.
Yes. Do you have a point?
Yes, his point is that your argument is fallacious.
Yes it is, because being in Wikipedia is no longer an indication of noteworthiness.
So what? Other than to boost some elitist attitude I don't see why this even matters.
Please try reading my post before you reply so I don't have to repeat myself.
I have read your post. It's nonsensical and your logic is entirely circular.
The notable topics are still there, but being there no longer indicates that they are notable, so how do you tell the difference?
Through my own judgement? I don't need someone else to filter things for me, I have a functioning brain that can do that for me.
And why act like Wikipedia is the sole repository for all human knowledge?
Because that's what Jimmy Wales is trying to claim Wikipedia is supposed to be?
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation
One can not be the "sum of all human knowledge" without including the "sum of all human knowledge". I hate to break it to you, but the sum of all human knowledge contains vast amounts of things that you would call "non notable".
If your pet topic isn't included in Wikipedia, then go start your own Wiki for it (as lots of people already have for any number of specialized topics).
Ah yes the tired argument that if you are against the deletionist horde it must be because you've had some personal article deleted. Sorry, bro, that's just not true.
And I don't really see much advertising for it either.
That's because their customers for Google Docs are enterprise customers, not you.
*facepalm* ISPs are not common carries and never have been. It's amazing how many idiots keep parroting this crap when a simple Google search would show you how wrong it is. The FCC long ago stated, and reaffirmed in 1998, that ISPs are not common carriers during what is called the "Computer Inquiries". The FCC stated that ISPs fall within a category called "enhanced services" which are unregulated.
All Google has to do is say to Oracle, or IBM, or anyone that tries to sue them for violating their ridiculous patents is this:
"Okay. How about we de-list all of your sites from our search engine, and block all of your IP space from using our search engine, or any of our other sites, like YouTube? Oh, and we'll renegotiate all of our peering agreements, so that we don't route any traffic from your networks over our network, too."
Yeah, and buy themselves and instant ticket to an anti-trust lawsuit? The people running Google aren't that dumb because their lawyers would be telling them the same thing.
I mean, Google isn't *required* to index anybody's site, or offer service to anyone it doesn't want.
What are you are and aren't allowed to do changes quite dramatically when you are the dominant player in the market. Such a move is clearly anti-competitive.
Any cases that go to court will already be dwarfed by the massive sums of money Android will have earned Google.
That's funny because I'm looking at Google's financial statements right now and a little over 7 billion in their revenue (or about 96.5% of all total revenue) comes from their Adsense programs and revenue generated from Google-owned websites. The other 3.5% of their revenue or about 254 million is in a category marked "other" and the bulk of that "other" revenue is from interest from investments. So, no, you are very much wrong about how Android is making them "massive sums of money" by Google's own financial statements.
So far we also like Google more than the billionaires clubs as run by Gates and Ellison.
Yeah, because Sergey, Larry and Eric are just paupers. It's not like they are billionaires too or anything. Oh wait...
As I recall, the majority of voting shares are owned by Larry, Eric and Sergey.
So what? Stockholders can still file suit regardless of whether they make up a majority or not.
On top of this, if provoked far enough who's to say that the big G won't push GDocs to compete with Office 365,
They already do push that.
or put its might behind an open source database to aim at cannibalising SQL sales etc?
Google already sponsors development on both MySQL and PostgresSQL.
On strong, broad patent is far more valuable than 100 weak, easily avoidable, narrow patents.
Not true at all. It's much easier to make your opponents defense much harder if you just barrage them with a flurry of patents rather than just a singular one.
It gets lost because having an article on Wikipedia is no longer a sign that the topic is notable.
So what? People who don't want to see the non-notable articles don't have to view them and the articles that they do deem "notable" are still there and are still just as accessible as they have always been. Nothing is "lost".
i think that you are the one employing moral relativism.
Then you must have a different definition of the word than others use.
Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions. Each of them is concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures:
Descriptive relativism describes the way things are, without suggesting a way they ought to be. It seeks only to point out that people frequently disagree over what is the most 'moral' course of action.
Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[1] The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".[2]
Normative relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that, because there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others - even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[3] Most philosophers find that this position is incoherent, or at least that it is unclear how meta-ethical relativism can lead to 'ought' statements.[3]
I don't fall under any of those positions.
trade embargoes always punish the average citizen and poor while the ruling class find ways around them.
The same could be said for almost any punishment that some people will always find ways around them. Does that mean we should never punish anyone for anything?
it is merely false to pretend that the US has some higher footing than other countries.
How does it not have a higher moral footing than Iran? Does the US stone raped women by saying they wanted it to happen and that it's really adultery? Does the US government put to death someone for being gay? Does the US government put to death or chop off the limbs of people for blasphemy? Is the US code of laws based on a backwards set of moral codes from a Middle Aged group of goat herders? Oh wait, it's not so it CLEARLY is better than Iran. Sorry, but your moral relativism stinks of bullshit.
But! But! Disregard the fact that Iran stones raped women, puts to death homosexuals, violently oppresses free speech and political demonstrations and has it's law system based on a backwards Middle Age set of moral codes, etc. Teh US has done bad things so it is clearly worse!!
If only Mozilla dedicated to the GNU/Linux version a tenth of the effort it dedicates to the Windows version
Yes, how dare they spend MORE time on the version that the vast majority of their users use rather than for the OS with the minority of users. How illogical of them!
The point isn't that a beta has bugs. It's the fact that despite claiming they are going to push this to RC and release soon it still has 100 hardblocking bugs. THAT is the news.
I seem to recall that Windows 98 had something on the order of 32,000 bugs a few months before release.
Yes, and Windows 98 was also a COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEM with far more complexity than a web browser. Imagine that, something with more complexity and more LOC than a less complex and smaller LOC piece of software has more bugs! *gasp* What insight!
Btw, what better way to celebrate virii than an add-infected site.
1) The term is 'viruses' not 'virii'.
2) The word you are thinking of is 'ads'. Unless you are somehow blocking a website that is infected with "addition" which makes little to no sense.
they're going to have to re-think what they want to do at least somewhat or be facing a tougher problem with ARM in the market in about 5 years.
This has been said multiple times every decade since the 90s. Intel isn't going anywhere and the supposed ARMageddon(TM) that is constantly predicted (first it was ARM desktops, then ARM laptops, then ARM netbooks, now it's supposed to be ARM phones and tablets) fails to materialize every time.
Yes, I already mentioned that they made a correction on page 2 about their original claim.
It's like saying there's more cyanide in ocean water than in a glass of cyanide, because there's more cyanide collectively in the ocean as a whole.
Huh?
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
That sounds nothing like your analogy at all.
What's funny is that he's submitted like 10 or 11 stories in just the last 3 months on this plant.
And the level of contamination in the surrounding soil and water is far less than what you get around even the cleanest of coal plants.