>This is mainly due to the fact that there is no "stable" Wikipedia --
This is mainly due to the fact that the vast majority of those in academia (=higher education) consider Wikipedia to be absolutely unreliable. And the foregoing is usually with good reason. Most Wikipedia articles on anything from Mexico to traffic lights, are a sophomoric collection of random facts without any overall coherence or structure-- the latter being the exact thing, that higher knowledge attempts to impart.
Add to that rampant inaccurracies, which are often hidden and hard to root out, and you *might* understand why academics think Wikipedia is low value.
The bottom line is that Wikipedia isn't written by experts, or for the large part by people who have expertise in *any* field, and for topics outside CS and parts of the sciences, it's pretty poor because non-expert "crowds" don't have much judgment. In short-- there's no wisdom in crowds, only amplified ignorance.
Ah, yes. But if you're going to go around assassinating foreign leaders, well, well your three-letter agency would do better to assassinate them while they're still candidates, of course, and don't get bloody caught at it like you did in Australian, er, but, anyway, if you're going to do it, its better to be a bit subtle about. In which case the substance you deliver via the hummingdrone should be something a bit smaller, and which gives at least a good deal of plausible deniability, if not ideally something fairly slow-working and likely to be undetected by the time of any autopsy.
Appropriate substances are left as an exercise for the analyst.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that a driverless car is a pie-in-the-sky idea with no market whatsoever. It's not like any state legislatures are going to change the rules of the road to allow the infernal things, or anything-- they'll never fly.
P.S. And there will be no related technologies derived from the cars whatsoever, for instance, no self-controlling hummingbird-sized Ahmajinedad-search-and-destroy drones. Never.
1) The translations aren't semantically equivalent (as pointed out by commenters above above). I can already say "Ich bin ein dummer Amerikaner" in my own voice, without machine help. If the meaning isn't there, who cares?
2) The machine accent ain't that great, either.
All of this makes me think this is still somewhat of a pipe dream. The AI guys have been selling the idea of machine translation for years and years-- at least since the 50s, when it was promised to eliminate the need for trained State Department linguists. It's never emerged because it's still a hard problem. Even Google's translate, which beats the MS stuff by some yards, produces results which range from awkward phrasing to just plain inaccurate and misleading.
He's selling a great idea, but it's kind of like the Fountain of Youth. It ain't there, vaporware.
Parent says: >Discourse doesn't happen without community. Community is protected by moderation (usually which affects visibility). >And communities seem to thrive or have a feedback effect when discourse is strong, respectful and healthy. >Gawker, Jezebel, Gizmodo, io9 and Lifehacker have none of the above -- and if they have moderation it is heavy handed >deletionary censorship. >So all they get is drive-by shootings or white panel vans with painted over windows offering free candy.
Wow, just wow. Unfortunately this story captures the utter technical ignorance of the "business" side of much online operations.
I don't know who Denton is talking about, but among the people who actually knew how to use the internet in the early 90s, there was a lot more than "hope." These people ("we") were actually using online forums ("comments" in the language of MBA-legacy-journalism-old-media jerks) perfectly fine.
If you build a bathroom wall and place a marker next to it, you should expect nothing more that what you get. The problem here is that in the mid-to-late 90s, a bunch of people who knew relatively little about online communications poured into the online world, hoping to get rich. And they really didn't know much about what they were doing.
And so in their rush for dollars, they build things that really didn't work very well. In essence, in a "rush to market" and to "show investors something" (the oft-proclaim "results" which aren't "results"), they built flat forums without moderation.
And in essence, this is like trying to open a college without hiring professors, and telling the students just to read the assignments and show up in room X and have a discussion. "Good luck with that," as it is said -- it's not going to work, because college frosh aren't accustomed to behaving in that way. Heck, I'd be surprised if many grad students in many disciplines, could have effective discussions without some form of organization (for instance, a participant or two acting as forum moderator).
Flat (forums without the ability to reply to other participants / poorly implemented or non-threaded forums) are not only simply ineffective, but do not model actual human interaction (much less complex interactions and discussion) well. They almost guarantee the "drive by" kind of one-shot comment, which is often inane and more-than-often, the writer performing a solioquy to themselves.
Anonymousness, too often over-touted, leads to a lack of community and long-term relationships -- I really can't imagine that people like Denton paid much attention to the example of "the Well," (which was a great early community, for those of you who don't know). The point that building an online persona (identity) for a particular forum has a value, and fosters better relationships, even if that persona is not clearly linked to an offline "identity," hasn't really gotten through.
Of course-- I don't think Gawker is really new media, or that Denton is particularly interested in building new media or online discussions. It's "Gawker." It's there ot make money, and to stuff the form and content of old media into the new. It's one way; it's mass produced by the talking head of a journalist; it's not at all collective; and at its high-point, it's a freak show. It's GAWKER.
Why are any of us talking about it, anyway? Surely we're not stay-at-home-unemployed-not-moms whose other options are the soaps, Oprah and Dr. Oz's latest rehash of mumbo-jumbo mystics and "sex therapy."
You want boring? Go spend forty years of your life in a Soviet hirise, in one of the occupied countries. Say, 1945-1985.
Sure, for any large installation (say, over ten), you want numbered servers indicating location etc. For any installation below that whose names will front-face to humans, you want human-readable names that will stick in the imagination and inspire.
~"You" meaning "one" in the sense of "reasonable person" and not in the sense of "heartless bureaucrat who wants to make their life a little bit easier by making the lives of everyone around them a little bit deader," of course.~
He said particularly: >I don't condole the activities of LulzSec, but fuck snitches. As one said by the great Capt Jack Sparrow: > "The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers." If there was a hell, this asshole belongs there.
His comment is clearly made within the discursive comment of this incident with LulzSec. While he may indeed intent to be making a blanket statement, or believe all snitches in all contexts are reprehensible, it cannot be logically ascertained from the statements alone. Equally the popular culture quote from the Sparrow refers to betrayers and mutineers, those who clearly violate standards of moral obligation -- obligations which are considered binding by some moral law.
At which point, one begins to wondered if you are a Canuck or a Canard. In any case, your grasp is too slippery to hoist by any petard, yours or not, and so I renew my request that you thrust your hand into something more solid, such as sand.
Actually, it's not quite an anology if you don't make an actual analogy... but forget that for a moment.
Hacking Stratfor? Hell, there are people who would argue that doing so was patriotic duty; if I were a defense attorney, I might just argue that it was done with the full knowledge and complicity of the US FBI. Regardless, as a "crime," as much as overzelous prosecutors (and other fools) would like the public to believe that cybercrime is just the same as regular old crime, there are just as many arguments to the contrary.
$500K of credit card so-called "white collar" fraud, paid for by the credit card companies? (And actually, a great number of those 'causes' reversed the donations, so it's probably much less than $500K?) Cry me a river, and ain't I glad the FBI is going after that, and not murderers, child rapist and the goons who run Wall Street.
My point is that both anti- and pro-lulz positions are, as expressed on Slashdot, pretty darn toothless.
You analogy "stands?" What the heck does that mean? Can it sit and roll over, too? Drool, perhaps:P ?
Yes, I got the analogy. It's a pretty obvious one, however, by arguing through an attempt at metonomy, when there is a lack of clear similarity, your argument is inherently weak.
If you (or anyone) wants to come out and argue that Lulzsec is just a bunch of criminals, with some analytic depth, that'd be great. It'd be a lot better than the naive assumption that they are criminals.
Equally, with all the lulzsec fanbois out there, if someone wants to argue that they're Robin Hoods, with some analytic depth, instread of just cheerleading for them, that'd be great too.
Which reminds me-- I need to go taunt some of the fanbois, too:P
I said they weren't drug dealers and murderers, that there's no equivalence, not that they were good guys. Credit card fraud is not bloody murder. Again, get a grip.
>To bring about change you must win the hearts and minds of the public.
Yeah. Like the heroes of the French Revolution. Madame La Guilloutine certainly had the heart and mind of every living citizen in her grasp, and the neck of everyone else in her mouth, c'est la Verite, non?
Slashdot Mirror
>This is mainly due to the fact that there is no "stable" Wikipedia --
This is mainly due to the fact that the vast majority of those in academia (=higher education) consider Wikipedia to be absolutely unreliable. And the foregoing is usually with good reason. Most Wikipedia articles on anything from Mexico to traffic lights, are a sophomoric collection of random facts without any overall coherence or structure-- the latter being the exact thing, that higher knowledge attempts to impart.
Add to that rampant inaccurracies, which are often hidden and hard to root out, and you *might* understand why academics think Wikipedia is low value.
The bottom line is that Wikipedia isn't written by experts, or for the large part by people who have expertise in *any* field, and for topics outside CS and parts of the sciences, it's pretty poor because non-expert "crowds" don't have much judgment. In short-- there's no wisdom in crowds, only amplified ignorance.
Ah, yes. But if you're going to go around assassinating foreign leaders, well, well your three-letter agency would do better to assassinate them while they're still candidates, of course, and don't get bloody caught at it like you did in Australian, er, but, anyway, if you're going to do it, its better to be a bit subtle about. In which case the substance you deliver via the hummingdrone should be something a bit smaller, and which gives at least a good deal of plausible deniability, if not ideally something fairly slow-working and likely to be undetected by the time of any autopsy.
Appropriate substances are left as an exercise for the analyst.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that a driverless car is a pie-in-the-sky idea with no market whatsoever. It's not like any state legislatures are going to change the rules of the road to allow the infernal things, or anything-- they'll never fly.
P.S. And there will be no related technologies derived from the cars whatsoever, for instance, no self-controlling hummingbird-sized Ahmajinedad-search-and-destroy drones. Never.
>If this was a something out of any other company, would the same people be criticizing i
Ehhn. I dunno. I'll say this. I'll give your answer 10 microLenats.
1) The translations aren't semantically equivalent (as pointed out by commenters above above). I can already say "Ich bin ein dummer Amerikaner" in my own voice, without machine help. If the meaning isn't there, who cares?
2) The machine accent ain't that great, either.
All of this makes me think this is still somewhat of a pipe dream. The AI guys have been selling the idea of machine translation for years and years-- at least since the 50s, when it was promised to eliminate the need for trained State Department linguists. It's never emerged because it's still a hard problem. Even Google's translate, which beats the MS stuff by some yards, produces results which range from awkward phrasing to just plain inaccurate and misleading.
He's selling a great idea, but it's kind of like the Fountain of Youth. It ain't there, vaporware.
Parent says:
>Discourse doesn't happen without community. Community is protected by moderation (usually which affects visibility).
>And communities seem to thrive or have a feedback effect when discourse is strong, respectful and healthy.
>Gawker, Jezebel, Gizmodo, io9 and Lifehacker have none of the above -- and if they have moderation it is heavy handed
>deletionary censorship.
>So all they get is drive-by shootings or white panel vans with painted over windows offering free candy.
Mod parent up.
Wow, just wow. Unfortunately this story captures the utter technical ignorance of the "business" side of much online operations.
I don't know who Denton is talking about, but among the people who actually knew how to use the internet in the early 90s, there was a lot more than "hope." These people ("we") were actually using online forums ("comments" in the language of MBA-legacy-journalism-old-media jerks) perfectly fine.
If you build a bathroom wall and place a marker next to it, you should expect nothing more that what you get. The problem here is that in the mid-to-late 90s, a bunch of people who knew relatively little about online communications poured into the online world, hoping to get rich. And they really didn't know much about what they were doing.
And so in their rush for dollars, they build things that really didn't work very well. In essence, in a "rush to market" and to "show investors something" (the oft-proclaim "results" which aren't "results"), they built flat forums without moderation.
And in essence, this is like trying to open a college without hiring professors, and telling the students just to read the assignments and show up in room X and have a discussion. "Good luck with that," as it is said -- it's not going to work, because college frosh aren't accustomed to behaving in that way. Heck, I'd be surprised if many grad students in many disciplines, could have effective discussions without some form of organization (for instance, a participant or two acting as forum moderator).
Flat (forums without the ability to reply to other participants / poorly implemented or non-threaded forums) are not only simply ineffective, but do not model actual human interaction (much less complex interactions and discussion) well. They almost guarantee the "drive by" kind of one-shot comment, which is often inane and more-than-often, the writer performing a solioquy to themselves.
Anonymousness, too often over-touted, leads to a lack of community and long-term relationships -- I really can't imagine that people like Denton paid much attention to the example of "the Well," (which was a great early community, for those of you who don't know). The point that building an online persona (identity) for a particular forum has a value, and fosters better relationships, even if that persona is not clearly linked to an offline "identity," hasn't really gotten through.
Of course-- I don't think Gawker is really new media, or that Denton is particularly interested in building new media or online discussions. It's "Gawker." It's there ot make money, and to stuff the form and content of old media into the new. It's one way; it's mass produced by the talking head of a journalist; it's not at all collective; and at its high-point, it's a freak show. It's GAWKER.
Why are any of us talking about it, anyway? Surely we're not stay-at-home-unemployed-not-moms whose other options are the soaps, Oprah and Dr. Oz's latest rehash of mumbo-jumbo mystics and "sex therapy."
Spoken like a true Obenfuehren.
>last I checked, Windows was still on some 90% of desktops worldwide.
What year was that :) ?
Si cabron. Nadie habla español en los Estados Unidos. Sobre todo la 30 millones de mexicanos que viven en territorio de EE.UU.. Culo!
>It was not Mitnick. Mitnick was charged and convicted. There is another guy in the film who was allegedly[1] tortured.
[citation needed]
[footnote 1: Fixed that for you]
>US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
[footnote 2: If your anti-semetic rump is as paranoid as your comments imply, you sure you want to be making that statement in public?]
You want boring? Go spend forty years of your life in a Soviet hirise, in one of the occupied countries. Say, 1945-1985.
Sure, for any large installation (say, over ten), you want numbered servers indicating location etc. For any installation below that whose names will front-face to humans, you want human-readable names that will stick in the imagination and inspire.
~"You" meaning "one" in the sense of "reasonable person" and not in the sense of "heartless bureaucrat who wants to make their life a little bit easier by making the lives of everyone around them a little bit deader," of course.~
Thank you. [sarcasm] Because I'd never heard of Kevin Mitnick, never met him... [/sarcasm]
Mitnick is an outlier, obviously, silly :)
Spanish for persons from the US is 'Estadounidoestes." Thank you for playing, please try again.
OK, let's do this again:
Hector X Monsegur
90 Avenue D, Apt 6F
New York, NY 10009-5511
(from public records search)
So...
NULL.google.com :P
???
BORING.
Server names should be members of an (interesting) class.
Agate, garnet....
Socrates, Hypocrates...
(all Berkeley.edu)
blood...
(bbn.com... I'll let you guess some of the others in the series :)
He said particularly:
>I don't condole the activities of LulzSec, but fuck snitches. As one said by the great Capt Jack Sparrow:
> "The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers." If there was a hell, this asshole belongs there.
His comment is clearly made within the discursive comment of this incident with LulzSec. While he may indeed intent to be making a blanket statement, or believe all snitches in all contexts are reprehensible, it cannot be logically ascertained from the statements alone. Equally the popular culture quote from the Sparrow refers to betrayers and mutineers, those who clearly violate standards of moral obligation -- obligations which are considered binding by some moral law.
At which point, one begins to wondered if you are a Canuck or a Canard. In any case, your grasp is too slippery to hoist by any petard, yours or not, and so I renew my request that you thrust your hand into something more solid, such as sand.
Actually, it's not quite an anology if you don't make an actual analogy... but forget that for a moment.
Hacking Stratfor? Hell, there are people who would argue that doing so was patriotic duty; if I were a defense attorney, I might just argue that it was done with the full knowledge and complicity of the US FBI. Regardless, as a "crime," as much as overzelous prosecutors (and other fools) would like the public to believe that cybercrime is just the same as regular old crime, there are just as many arguments to the contrary.
$500K of credit card so-called "white collar" fraud, paid for by the credit card companies? (And actually, a great number of those 'causes' reversed the donations, so it's probably much less than $500K?) Cry me a river, and ain't I glad the FBI is going after that, and not murderers, child rapist and the goons who run Wall Street.
My point is that both anti- and pro-lulz positions are, as expressed on Slashdot, pretty darn toothless.
You analogy "stands?" What the heck does that mean? Can it sit and roll over, too? Drool, perhaps :P ?
I thought it was more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_18_Brumaire :)
Yes, I got the analogy. It's a pretty obvious one, however, by arguing through an attempt at metonomy, when there is a lack of clear similarity, your argument is inherently weak.
If you (or anyone) wants to come out and argue that Lulzsec is just a bunch of criminals, with some analytic depth, that'd be great. It'd be a lot better than the naive assumption that they are criminals.
Equally, with all the lulzsec fanbois out there, if someone wants to argue that they're Robin Hoods, with some analytic depth, instread of just cheerleading for them, that'd be great too.
Which reminds me-- I need to go taunt some of the fanbois, too :P
The above comment is certainly prosaic, but does it have anything to do with the topic at hand?
[citation needed]
I said they weren't drug dealers and murderers, that there's no equivalence, not that they were good guys. Credit card fraud is not bloody murder. Again, get a grip.
Would that be:
Hector X Monsegur
90 Avenue D, Apt 6F
New York, NY 10009-5511
I'm not in NYC this week. Could someone go spit on this SOB for me?
>To bring about change you must win the hearts and minds of the public.
Yeah. Like the heroes of the French Revolution. Madame La Guilloutine certainly had the heart and mind of every living citizen in her grasp, and the neck of everyone else in her mouth, c'est la Verite, non?