If a 10-second message is sliced into 10 overlapping 2-second pieces, then 10 different humans across the globe have to parse the few words out of each piece and send it back. The software (running on an in-house computer) can then process the overlapping transcriptions and put together the full text, even applying automatic spell- and grammar-checkers to smooth out the result.
This way, one could use cheap labor overseas, but still claim, that your data never leaves the home country — because those short segments aren't of any use to anybody, who has no way to find other pieces of the message.
Their service says that they keep user supplied data in house. They do not.
.
They still might. For example, they may be sending pieces of the recordings to different people (in different parts of the world) for parsing. Overlapping 2- or 3-second slices for example. And then their "advanced techonology" may glue the words discerned by the humans into sentences. The supplied data thus never leaves the house in a form, that's of use to anybody, which is all that matters.
Their service says that they use advanced technological means to do the transcription. They do not.
You don't know this either — using humans does not prevent use of "advanced technological means" as well.
How on earth do you take that to mean 'their service does what it says'?
If I get the voice-mail transcribed to text properly, then "their service does what it says". That's all.
When we repealed the (very good) legislation enacted in response to the Great Depression, we restore to market to its natural boom-bust cycle.
False. Boom-bust continued after the WW2. We still have not hit some of the lows, that we've seen in the second half of the 20th century. For example, these days, the unemployment rate is yet to hit the 1982 levels of 10.8%...
The current bubble came not from lack of regulation, but from inflated real-estate prices. That inflation is a direct consequence of government regulation — forcing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy lower-quality mortgages (all in the name of "helping the poor", of course).
The people, who weren't previously qualified for a mortgages, suddenly could get one, increasing demand for houses. This pushed up the prices for all real estate and the rest is better known... As usual, government's meddling in the free market proved damaging. Highly so this time.
That Obama-supporting news media managed to hang this around McCain's neck last year is a phenomenal show of mind-manipulation...
these people gave us 50 years of prosperity
Wrong again... I must wonder, if your historical revisionism is part of a troll... Only the 28 years from 1945 to 1973 are considered booming. By the end of 60ies we were going off of the Gold Standard (dollar become fiat money) and, sure enough, inflation ensued in the 1970ies.
The regulation, that you lament so much, made our markets more efficient. Unfortunately, the government's meddling in the mortgage-rules has set this wonderfully efficient market in the wrong direction... Think of it this way — would you blame the car-maker for giving you a faster engine, if your car hits a log on the highway? Sure enough, if you were still riding a buggy, you would've stopped before the log and avoided the accident...
fucking sick [...] self-righteous tool sheds, like yourself [...] whatever the fuck [...] fucking process [...] fucking framework [...] bag of douche [...] like a cunt [...] testicular
Now, that's a fine way to make an argument, and teach others to do the same!
To address your point — as much as I was able to discern it through foul language — he absolutely does have a full (fucking) right to live anywhere he wants to (and so does everyone else). And I (fucking) challenge you to show, where in my posting do I deny that right.
My point was, people, who claim, that corporations and Capitalism are evil, are (fucking) inconsistent and hypocritical. They enjoy the awesome standard of living, that Capitalism offers even to its least-successful participants, while doing their damnest to undermine it.
Having lived under and among such hypocrisy through my youth, I'm particularly angry at its practitioners here. Hypocrisy is not illegal, but had Chomsky and his followers been honest, they would've moved to a corporations-free country such as North Korea, or Cuba, or, at least, Venezuela. That they have no "testicular fortitude" to do so, does not lead me to advocate their deportation — contrary to your rant — but simply that I deem them to be hypocrites and would not honor their arguments with a direct rebuttal, since deep inside they don't hold the expressed opinions themselves.
Actually, quite a few products are made by well paid people in western countries, precisely because they have unions.
Citation needed.
Not all unions are good, but many are.
I suppose, not all trusts were bad either, but the US has long-standing laws against them. What many fail to realize, is that trade unions are the same — trusts seeking to become monopolistic sources of their members' services. That they sometimes fight for that through highly illegal means, including violence ought to subject them to anti-racketeering laws as well...
Now, I am all for "freedom of association" — even if Senators McCain & Feingold aren't — and have no problems with collective bargaining per se. What I see as evil, however, are the legal advantages and protections, that unions enjoy even in our mostly free country...
Corporations don't lower their prices when they reduce their costs. They just pocket the money.
Fortunately, that is none of our business, is it?
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Fortunately, nobody is forced to associate with corporations... I hear, the North Korea's and Cuba's borders are open to people wanting to move in... Quick, rush back to Chomsky's drivel to find a decent-sounding reason you are still here...
The Princeton WordNet dictionary defines "extortion":
extortion — (an exorbitant charge)
extortion — (unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority); "the extortion by dishonest officials of fees for performing their sworn duty")
extortion — (the felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of violence))
Now, the first one does not apply — although we don't know, what he plans on charging, it is highly unlikely to be "exorbitant".
The second one might apply, if we interpret the "sworn duty" widely, and he started on this before retiring. It is more likely, that his "contacts", who helped him, while still on the government payroll, are extorting...
And the third does not apply, because he is not threatening anybody...
On the other hand, no government program exists, AFAIK, to notify individuals of the law-enforcement's discovery of their private information "outside" — in other words, it is not anybody's "sworn duty" to notify us. Then, again, perhaps, such program would've been created by now, had the police not had this guy's outlet in mind...
Finally, I think, I'd welcome a private individual organizing this kind of business. Even if they were ex-police — after all, private investigators do exist, and nobody calls ex-cops among them "extortionists".
I am a Wikipedia reader and I would prefer the Free version that has illustrations that are good enough.
For the purposes of these discussions, where the preferences and behavior of millions of users are the topic, the terms "all" and "overwhelming majority" are equivalent and interchangeable. You know that too, and yet you chose to engage in this kind of hair-splitting...
There's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for whatever purpose you like so long as you stick to the rules.
The rules, as I have already mentioned, were changed by Wikipedia. They didn't mind "restrictive" licenses up until 2006, and then, having attained what they believed was sufficiently critical mass, they changed the rules so as to push forward a certain agenda to the detriment of both readers and the serious contributors.
But photographers now seem to be telling them to change the rules because it is harming their ability to use it for something which is not Wikipedia's stated purpose.
The photographers' ability to use Wikipedia for self-promotion is not contrary to any of the Wikipedia's stated purposes either. If the "price" of getting higher quality illustrations is accepting images marked "Wikipedia only", then the illustrations are still free, and ought to be accepted.
No, the Wikipedia readers who don't care about the information being Free are worse off for it.
And that represents the vastly overwhelming majority of readers, who use the site for a quick reference and can't be bothered to check the permissions on the illustrations, much less to have an opinion on that... And you know that too — you are just presenting yourself as an exception, while denying (to yourself) how tiny the minority you represent really is.
Face it, the information being Free is not part of Wikipedia's stated purpose — just as helping photographers is not. When the two conflict, neither one can pull the "I'm the founding principle!" and they have to be reconciled by looking at what advances the site's mission better.
I maintain, that attracting high-quality images is more important, because it improves the experience for millions of readers, even if a tiny minority is unhappy about being unable to use those images elsewhere (not that any of them ever would, mind you).
Please do not be under the illusion that your views universally apply to every Wikipedia reader, for they do not.
Well, you are under that illusion all day — why can't I be?
I can't be bothered with an on-line PDF-file — is voting fraud on the list? Because the Honduran fraudster got the backing of the current US Administration... Someone needs to tell the mullahs, that the easiest way to the heart of America's President may lie through something, that they already doing...
You do realize, that according to this argument, there should, for example, be only one passenger car in production nation- (perhaps even planet-) wide?
Eh? In what way does that have *anything* to do with the discussion?
You defended WP's policy, by saying, it is better to have a single license, because then it is easier for everyone to know, what it is. This is just as easily applied to nearly anything else — there being only one passenger car, for example, will make it much easier to find parts and all mechanics will need to know just one model.
Wikipedia is built on the premise that anyone can submit content and anyone can use content (under a very broad licence).
Wrong. Only the first part is the founding premise: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The second one — reuse of the content elsewhere — is not a founding premise... The term "free encyclopedia" means free (as in beer) to use...
Wikipedia is about providing information under a very permissive licence.
Nope, they aren't. The permissiveness of the license is nowhere near as important as the "anyone can edit" part. In fact, up until a couple of years ago, it used to be possible to upload images under a choice of licenses... The "very permissive" license demanded of media-owners now is a fairly recent development. Wikipedia reached millions of articles without such demands — and then somebody decided to use the project's weight to wrestle rights from the image-owners. Automatic bots began deleting stuff, that was not sufficiently permissive — including, hysterically, my own logo, a silly image I wanted displayed on my own user-page without giving the rest of the world permission to add it to their clip-art compilations.
That was a miscalculations, which lead to an overall lower quality of images by now...
They are not imposing a view on anyone - if you don't like looking at Free information then you are free to go elsewhere.
Of course they are! In 2006 you could see an image, and in 2007 it was replaced by one inferior in every respect except license. For somebody just reading the articles — the vastly overwhelming majority of visitors — that's a disadvantage imposed on them by the site's maintainers.
It isn't really clear to me who is complaining in this article. It certainly doesn't seem to be the users. It mentions photographers and publicists.
Is it any clearer, who was complaining before? Certainly, not the users... And if anybody were to ask them, it is a fairly obvious bet, that, when shown two freely readable pages with the same text, any reader would prefer one with higher quality illustrations.
Wikipedia is simply a way of publicising their portfolio.
And there is nothing wrong with it, as long as their contributions are on-topic. Gratuitously pissing these people off — by demanding, they give up all rights to the posted pictures — is what resulted in the lower-quality of images, that TFA is discussing... And all of the Wikipedia readers are the worse of for it...
Checking the license on a single image is feasible for an enterpreneur, doing so for all the content included in a thousand articles is not.
Why not? Your hypothetical Chilean would be able to do that — if he has the resources to translate those thousands of articles, checking the licenses on images is the least of his problems...
1. It means you don't have to deal with investigating the licence on every bit of content - if you want to reuse some content on Wikipedia then you *know* what the licence is because its all the same.
You do realize, that according to this argument, there should, for example, be only one passenger car in production nation- (perhaps even planet-) wide? Seriously, nobody doing something remotely serious enough to warrant license research will be thwarted by the "complexity" of verifying the license on a particular image they like.
2. Allowing non-CC licensed content would reduce the amount of CC licensed content on Wikipedia (articles would choose to use the "better" non-Free images *instead* of the Free ones), and that really would harm freedom.
So, you'd rather be looking at a free graffiti on a wall, than at a decent picture? Only because the picture's owner would not allow you to make free reproductions of it, should you decide to make them? And you wish to impose that view on the rest of the subway riders, who stare at the same wall? And you would call this imposition advancing freedom?
Please... Reducing the quality is what, well, reduces quality. And people still misappropriate the content — I have seen my pictures (given to Wikipedia) used on other sites without attribution.
Sounds like a policy failure to me...
Now, I know, that Wikipedia founders and maintainers are free to put forth whatever policies they damn please (and change them on the whim). But their rise diminishes other projects — commercial and otherwise. I'd rather Wikipedia lose popularity, so somebody more sensible rises to their current spot...
It advances freedom because the source material is free. Tada!
I thought, we only care about freedom of people here. Well, maybe, of animals too. But of source material? Please...
And the people's freedom is diminished, when high-quality options are rejected.
Well you clearly have an axe to grind over Wikipedia, and you're also butthurt about the current President of the United States of America
I do have an axe with Wikipedia, and so should you, if, indeed, freedom is important to you. Their handling of Obama's page is just another example, of how the site, that's "free for everyone to modify" is able to push the agenda of its more dedicated contributors. To the detriment of freedom of us all.
butthurt blah idiot blah troll
I am sorry for looking at the Beloved Leader with anything short of utter admiration. I shall repent — please, stop calling me names now...
Apparently they care more about freedom than having the highest quality images available. What more is there to say?
You could elaborate, I suppose... How exactly does rejecting images, which the author allows to be used within *.wikipedia.org, but not elsewhere, advance freedom?
One would think, they want their pages to be printable and (re)publishable, but in that case, the authors wouldn't be credited (there is no author's name printed, when you print the page) — contrary to the current license... No, their idea was to arm-twist image-creators (suchasmyself, BTW) into relinquishing rights, on pain of having their contributions auto-deleted from the site — most likely to advance certain agenda, that's so popular among a vociferous fraction of/. users (that copyrights are evil!)...
Lastly, if, indeed, freedom was on the mind over there, don't you think, Wikipedia would not have allowed a scrubbing campaign aimed at keeping the page of our Glorious Leader free (there you go, maybe, this is the "freedom" you had in mind?) of mentions of his embarrassing associations and that pesky eligibility question? At the time of this writing, for example, neither the terrorist Ayers, nor communist Alinsky are mentioned on the page, even though pages of those individuals describe their impact on the President...
What the presented material shows, is that our attitude was different from today's. Whether that was smarter or stupider, depends on one's opinions. The article provides nothing to add to the debate...
They [the Soviets] would have had the technology to disprove us, and don't tell me that they wouldn't have called us out.
The only thing, that the Soviets could've done, was to send a Lunokhod to the supposed landing site. But they had enough problems with the program, that aiming it at a particular spot (the range of the Lunokhod proved to be under 40 kilometers/25 miles) would've been a rather unwelcome complication...
Seriously, why would the no more advanced Soviets have a better technology to disprove what we can't reliably prove? That NASA has lost the original recordings is astoundingly suspicious — had a prosecutor, for example, admitted losing the original evidence and offer the court (easily faked — indeed, embellished in a place well known for some amazing computer-generated imagery) copies instead, the accused would've walked free. Because in courts we apply the reasonable doubt standard, yet, when the same is applied to government's statements, we are full of indignation...
And I do believe NASA, but I must admit, it smells awful.
think: a post-apocalyptic world where people are just fighting to stay alive
I don't think, "post-apocalyptic world", as filmed in various distopias, is really looming. But the hyperinflation caused by the government's mishandling the economy (which it really is not supposed to even handle), is possible. A few postings above yours someone has offered the example of the current day (rather than distopian) Zimbabwe, where gold is used today, because the official currency changes value significantly from morning to evening.
I don't think it's too high a barrier to expect somebody entering a toll road to have some cash. If stuck without change, I might tape up a $1 bill and photograph it.:) I hope it's well-marked at entrances that change is required at exits. I mean, it ought to be.
You may have cash, but if it is not in "silver" coins (copper pennies aren't acceptable), you can't use it... And no, it is not marked — not on entrances, not on the pre-exit signs ("This exit is change or E-ZPass only, the nearest human-operated exit is X miles away"). No.
Can you give me an example of these EZ-Pass-Only plazas?
Driving around NYC I listen to traffic-radio. Every once in a while they add a comment, that such-and-such plaza is currently "E-ZPass only". Even on plazas with cash gates, those are few and the lines to them are even longer, because they are on the sides — so that merging back into heavy traffic after paying takes forever. One can spend 10-15 minutes paying cash vs. under a minute of going through an E-ZPass lane.
What could they possibly expect somebody from another region of the Country (or Canada, eh?) to do?
An occasional visitor will go through a different road or wait. Regular drivers are being arm-twisted into getting E-ZPass and submitting to the thus-increased government surveillance...
I understand here in NH there's talk about milling through billing records to send math-based speeding tickets
Oddly enough, I think, that's a good thing, because the fines will apply to all. Whereas the cops are prone to selective enforcement, the computer will not be swayed by the driver being a judge, another cop's brother, a good-looking woman, etc. It should also fine even those, who've only exceeded the limit by 1 mph (on average — their peak speed must've been much higher anyway). I welcome it, because enraging almost all of the citizens by these fines is the surest way to significantly increase (or even abolish) the speed limits...
Khmm... My original posting in this thread, which was on topic, was moderated "off-topic" by an irate supporter of the "public healthcare option"... Oh, well. Let's switch to the topic of E-ZPass between us....
You pull into the reality lane and pay cash like everybody
Except the "cash" lines are increasingly scarce... With "E-ZPass" phasing out human operators, your only alternatives for cash payment is "exact change" on many exits. And some plazas are already "E-ZPass only" — at least, during certain hours of the day...
But, because joining E-ZPass is "voluntary", they aren't regulated or looked at and enjoy the best of both world's: the business' lack of oversight and the government's monopoly, which leads to the gems like this, for example:
a) The MTA may change the "FAST LANE Program Terms and Conditions" at any time by giving customers notice thereof. The terms and conditions shall become effective seven (7) days after such notice has been given. No written notice is required, and you hereby waive any requirement that written notice be provided. Such notice may be given through any means, including, but not limited to, advertising such notice in the media, posting such notice on message boards along the MTA's toll roadways, or otherwise, as determined by the MTA. If you have provided an electronic mailing address to the MTA with your application, you authorize that such notice may be provided by sending such notice to that electronic mail address, in the MTA's discretion.
The whole system is the "AT&T" all over again, and its designers in government — fascist fools ("fascist" as in "government runs businesses", not as in "death camps" — don't get worked up).
They should've put forth a standard and let multiple electronic-payment companies compete:
a motorist with an account with one of such companies approaches the gate, that's equipped with hardware from all of the competitors;
one of the competitors's devices recognizes the approaching car as "theirs" and opens the gate vouching to pay;
the car is on its way, the driver's account with one of the vendors is charged;
the money is sent to the road's owner (the State usually) and a portion of it is kept as the vendor's, wait for it...
Profit!
This would open the market to competition and encourage significant improvements in costs, privacy (there is no reason, why this service can't be as anonymous as phone-cards), and customer service... But one has to think like a free-market capitalist, rather than a Statist government functionary to come up with it...
So what happens when you show up to such a plaza and have no E-Z pass?
You are let through. Then, a week or so later, you get a letter in the mail demanding the actual toll amount, plus $25 "video-toll fee" — their cameras record your license plate.
I was therefore eligible for the $99 iPhone. What's more, AT&T has a clause in their contract where you can opt out within 30 days without paying the early termination fee.
He bought the phone without even considering keeping it, thus acting in bad faith... If AT&T learns about this, I wouldn't blame them for refusing to let him off. Either way, the guy's action was unethical, and the claim, that it "only costs $99" is misleading...
Yes, right. "Voluntary". You can join the system "voluntary", or you'll have to enforce anti-child pornography laws yourself, and we'll be extra careful checking, that you do...
Another example of such "voluntary" joining are "E-ZPass" — you don't have to sign-up, but certain toll-plazas have no other means to pay any more. The other, I fear, will be the "public healthcare option", that law-makers are discussing...
According to an article in TechDirt, this intervention motion by Mr. Garcia represents a changed attitude on his part, and that his initial reaction to Mr. Fairey's painting was admiration
Despite the major news-papers' best efforts, the bottom has fallen off of whatever container was holding support for Obama. Perhaps, Mr. Garcia is one of the remorseful buyers of the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" snake oil, and, somewhat literally, wants his money back?
Slashdot Mirror
If a 10-second message is sliced into 10 overlapping 2-second pieces, then 10 different humans across the globe have to parse the few words out of each piece and send it back. The software (running on an in-house computer) can then process the overlapping transcriptions and put together the full text, even applying automatic spell- and grammar-checkers to smooth out the result.
This way, one could use cheap labor overseas, but still claim, that your data never leaves the home country — because those short segments aren't of any use to anybody, who has no way to find other pieces of the message.
So, they may not be lying after all...
.
They still might. For example, they may be sending pieces of the recordings to different people (in different parts of the world) for parsing. Overlapping 2- or 3-second slices for example. And then their "advanced techonology" may glue the words discerned by the humans into sentences. The supplied data thus never leaves the house in a form, that's of use to anybody, which is all that matters.
You don't know this either — using humans does not prevent use of "advanced technological means" as well.
If I get the voice-mail transcribed to text properly, then "their service does what it says". That's all.
False. Boom-bust continued after the WW2. We still have not hit some of the lows, that we've seen in the second half of the 20th century. For example, these days, the unemployment rate is yet to hit the 1982 levels of 10.8%...
The current bubble came not from lack of regulation, but from inflated real-estate prices. That inflation is a direct consequence of government regulation — forcing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy lower-quality mortgages (all in the name of "helping the poor", of course).
The people, who weren't previously qualified for a mortgages, suddenly could get one, increasing demand for houses. This pushed up the prices for all real estate and the rest is better known... As usual, government's meddling in the free market proved damaging. Highly so this time.
That Obama-supporting news media managed to hang this around McCain's neck last year is a phenomenal show of mind-manipulation...
Wrong again... I must wonder, if your historical revisionism is part of a troll... Only the 28 years from 1945 to 1973 are considered booming. By the end of 60ies we were going off of the Gold Standard (dollar become fiat money) and, sure enough, inflation ensued in the 1970ies.
The regulation, that you lament so much, made our markets more efficient. Unfortunately, the government's meddling in the mortgage-rules has set this wonderfully efficient market in the wrong direction... Think of it this way — would you blame the car-maker for giving you a faster engine, if your car hits a log on the highway? Sure enough, if you were still riding a buggy, you would've stopped before the log and avoided the accident...
Now, that's a fine way to make an argument, and teach others to do the same!
To address your point — as much as I was able to discern it through foul language — he absolutely does have a full (fucking) right to live anywhere he wants to (and so does everyone else). And I (fucking) challenge you to show, where in my posting do I deny that right.
My point was, people, who claim, that corporations and Capitalism are evil, are (fucking) inconsistent and hypocritical. They enjoy the awesome standard of living, that Capitalism offers even to its least-successful participants, while doing their damnest to undermine it.
Having lived under and among such hypocrisy through my youth, I'm particularly angry at its practitioners here. Hypocrisy is not illegal, but had Chomsky and his followers been honest, they would've moved to a corporations-free country such as North Korea, or Cuba, or, at least, Venezuela. That they have no "testicular fortitude" to do so, does not lead me to advocate their deportation — contrary to your rant — but simply that I deem them to be hypocrites and would not honor their arguments with a direct rebuttal, since deep inside they don't hold the expressed opinions themselves.
Citation needed.
I suppose, not all trusts were bad either, but the US has long-standing laws against them. What many fail to realize, is that trade unions are the same — trusts seeking to become monopolistic sources of their members' services. That they sometimes fight for that through highly illegal means, including violence ought to subject them to anti-racketeering laws as well...
Now, I am all for "freedom of association" — even if Senators McCain & Feingold aren't — and have no problems with collective bargaining per se. What I see as evil, however, are the legal advantages and protections, that unions enjoy even in our mostly free country...
Fortunately, that is none of our business, is it?
Fortunately, nobody is forced to associate with corporations... I hear, the North Korea's and Cuba's borders are open to people wanting to move in... Quick, rush back to Chomsky's drivel to find a decent-sounding reason you are still here...
The Princeton WordNet dictionary defines "extortion":
Now, the first one does not apply — although we don't know, what he plans on charging, it is highly unlikely to be "exorbitant".
The second one might apply, if we interpret the "sworn duty" widely, and he started on this before retiring. It is more likely, that his "contacts", who helped him, while still on the government payroll, are extorting...
And the third does not apply, because he is not threatening anybody...
On the other hand, no government program exists, AFAIK, to notify individuals of the law-enforcement's discovery of their private information "outside" — in other words, it is not anybody's "sworn duty" to notify us. Then, again, perhaps, such program would've been created by now, had the police not had this guy's outlet in mind...
Finally, I think, I'd welcome a private individual organizing this kind of business. Even if they were ex-police — after all, private investigators do exist, and nobody calls ex-cops among them "extortionists".
For the purposes of these discussions, where the preferences and behavior of millions of users are the topic, the terms "all" and "overwhelming majority" are equivalent and interchangeable. You know that too, and yet you chose to engage in this kind of hair-splitting...
The rules, as I have already mentioned, were changed by Wikipedia. They didn't mind "restrictive" licenses up until 2006, and then, having attained what they believed was sufficiently critical mass, they changed the rules so as to push forward a certain agenda to the detriment of both readers and the serious contributors.
The photographers' ability to use Wikipedia for self-promotion is not contrary to any of the Wikipedia's stated purposes either. If the "price" of getting higher quality illustrations is accepting images marked "Wikipedia only", then the illustrations are still free, and ought to be accepted.
And that represents the vastly overwhelming majority of readers, who use the site for a quick reference and can't be bothered to check the permissions on the illustrations, much less to have an opinion on that... And you know that too — you are just presenting yourself as an exception, while denying (to yourself) how tiny the minority you represent really is.
Face it, the information being Free is not part of Wikipedia's stated purpose — just as helping photographers is not. When the two conflict, neither one can pull the "I'm the founding principle!" and they have to be reconciled by looking at what advances the site's mission better.
I maintain, that attracting high-quality images is more important, because it improves the experience for millions of readers, even if a tiny minority is unhappy about being unable to use those images elsewhere (not that any of them ever would, mind you).
Well, you are under that illusion all day — why can't I be?
I can't be bothered with an on-line PDF-file — is voting fraud on the list? Because the Honduran fraudster got the backing of the current US Administration... Someone needs to tell the mullahs, that the easiest way to the heart of America's President may lie through something, that they already doing...
(Flamebait my muscular behind...)
You defended WP's policy, by saying, it is better to have a single license, because then it is easier for everyone to know, what it is. This is just as easily applied to nearly anything else — there being only one passenger car, for example, will make it much easier to find parts and all mechanics will need to know just one model.
Wrong. Only the first part is the founding premise: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The second one — reuse of the content elsewhere — is not a founding premise... The term "free encyclopedia" means free (as in beer) to use...
Nope, they aren't. The permissiveness of the license is nowhere near as important as the "anyone can edit" part. In fact, up until a couple of years ago, it used to be possible to upload images under a choice of licenses... The "very permissive" license demanded of media-owners now is a fairly recent development. Wikipedia reached millions of articles without such demands — and then somebody decided to use the project's weight to wrestle rights from the image-owners. Automatic bots began deleting stuff, that was not sufficiently permissive — including, hysterically, my own logo, a silly image I wanted displayed on my own user-page without giving the rest of the world permission to add it to their clip-art compilations.
That was a miscalculations, which lead to an overall lower quality of images by now...
Of course they are! In 2006 you could see an image, and in 2007 it was replaced by one inferior in every respect except license. For somebody just reading the articles — the vastly overwhelming majority of visitors — that's a disadvantage imposed on them by the site's maintainers.
Is it any clearer, who was complaining before? Certainly, not the users... And if anybody were to ask them, it is a fairly obvious bet, that, when shown two freely readable pages with the same text, any reader would prefer one with higher quality illustrations.
And there is nothing wrong with it, as long as their contributions are on-topic. Gratuitously pissing these people off — by demanding, they give up all rights to the posted pictures — is what resulted in the lower-quality of images, that TFA is discussing... And all of the Wikipedia readers are the worse of for it...
Why not? Your hypothetical Chilean would be able to do that — if he has the resources to translate those thousands of articles, checking the licenses on images is the least of his problems...
You do realize, that according to this argument, there should, for example, be only one passenger car in production nation- (perhaps even planet-) wide? Seriously, nobody doing something remotely serious enough to warrant license research will be thwarted by the "complexity" of verifying the license on a particular image they like.
So, you'd rather be looking at a free graffiti on a wall, than at a decent picture? Only because the picture's owner would not allow you to make free reproductions of it, should you decide to make them? And you wish to impose that view on the rest of the subway riders, who stare at the same wall? And you would call this imposition advancing freedom?
Please... Reducing the quality is what, well, reduces quality. And people still misappropriate the content — I have seen my pictures (given to Wikipedia) used on other sites without attribution.
Sounds like a policy failure to me...
Now, I know, that Wikipedia founders and maintainers are free to put forth whatever policies they damn please (and change them on the whim). But their rise diminishes other projects — commercial and otherwise. I'd rather Wikipedia lose popularity, so somebody more sensible rises to their current spot...
I thought, we only care about freedom of people here. Well, maybe, of animals too. But of source material? Please...
And the people's freedom is diminished, when high-quality options are rejected.
I do have an axe with Wikipedia, and so should you, if, indeed, freedom is important to you. Their handling of Obama's page is just another example, of how the site, that's "free for everyone to modify" is able to push the agenda of its more dedicated contributors. To the detriment of freedom of us all.
I am sorry for looking at the Beloved Leader with anything short of utter admiration. I shall repent — please, stop calling me names now...
You could elaborate, I suppose... How exactly does rejecting images, which the author allows to be used within *.wikipedia.org, but not elsewhere, advance freedom?
One would think, they want their pages to be printable and (re)publishable, but in that case, the authors wouldn't be credited (there is no author's name printed, when you print the page) — contrary to the current license... No, their idea was to arm-twist image-creators (such as myself, BTW) into relinquishing rights, on pain of having their contributions auto-deleted from the site — most likely to advance certain agenda, that's so popular among a vociferous fraction of /. users (that copyrights are evil!)...
Lastly, if, indeed, freedom was on the mind over there, don't you think, Wikipedia would not have allowed a scrubbing campaign aimed at keeping the page of our Glorious Leader free (there you go, maybe, this is the "freedom" you had in mind?) of mentions of his embarrassing associations and that pesky eligibility question? At the time of this writing, for example, neither the terrorist Ayers, nor communist Alinsky are mentioned on the page, even though pages of those individuals describe their impact on the President...
I'm just glad, that it can not possibly happen here, can it? Wouldn't you hate to go back to the "hanging chads", that a human being can see?
A seen on The People's Cube:
What the presented material shows, is that our attitude was different from today's. Whether that was smarter or stupider, depends on one's opinions. The article provides nothing to add to the debate...
The only thing, that the Soviets could've done, was to send a Lunokhod to the supposed landing site. But they had enough problems with the program, that aiming it at a particular spot (the range of the Lunokhod proved to be under 40 kilometers/25 miles) would've been a rather unwelcome complication...
Seriously, why would the no more advanced Soviets have a better technology to disprove what we can't reliably prove? That NASA has lost the original recordings is astoundingly suspicious — had a prosecutor, for example, admitted losing the original evidence and offer the court (easily faked — indeed, embellished in a place well known for some amazing computer-generated imagery) copies instead, the accused would've walked free. Because in courts we apply the reasonable doubt standard, yet, when the same is applied to government's statements, we are full of indignation...
And I do believe NASA, but I must admit, it smells awful.
And yet, they can't find the President's real, actual, Birth Certificate...
I don't think, "post-apocalyptic world", as filmed in various distopias, is really looming. But the hyperinflation caused by the government's mishandling the economy (which it really is not supposed to even handle), is possible. A few postings above yours someone has offered the example of the current day (rather than distopian) Zimbabwe, where gold is used today, because the official currency changes value significantly from morning to evening.
You may have cash, but if it is not in "silver" coins (copper pennies aren't acceptable), you can't use it... And no, it is not marked — not on entrances, not on the pre-exit signs ("This exit is change or E-ZPass only, the nearest human-operated exit is X miles away"). No.
Driving around NYC I listen to traffic-radio. Every once in a while they add a comment, that such-and-such plaza is currently "E-ZPass only". Even on plazas with cash gates, those are few and the lines to them are even longer, because they are on the sides — so that merging back into heavy traffic after paying takes forever. One can spend 10-15 minutes paying cash vs. under a minute of going through an E-ZPass lane.
An occasional visitor will go through a different road or wait. Regular drivers are being arm-twisted into getting E-ZPass and submitting to the thus-increased government surveillance...
Oddly enough, I think, that's a good thing, because the fines will apply to all. Whereas the cops are prone to selective enforcement, the computer will not be swayed by the driver being a judge, another cop's brother, a good-looking woman, etc. It should also fine even those, who've only exceeded the limit by 1 mph (on average — their peak speed must've been much higher anyway). I welcome it, because enraging almost all of the citizens by these fines is the surest way to significantly increase (or even abolish) the speed limits...
Khmm... My original posting in this thread, which was on topic, was moderated "off-topic" by an irate supporter of the "public healthcare option"... Oh, well. Let's switch to the topic of E-ZPass between us....
Except the "cash" lines are increasingly scarce... With "E-ZPass" phasing out human operators, your only alternatives for cash payment is "exact change" on many exits. And some plazas are already "E-ZPass only" — at least, during certain hours of the day...
But, because joining E-ZPass is "voluntary", they aren't regulated or looked at and enjoy the best of both world's: the business' lack of oversight and the government's monopoly, which leads to the gems like this, for example:
The whole system is the "AT&T" all over again, and its designers in government — fascist fools ("fascist" as in "government runs businesses", not as in "death camps" — don't get worked up).
They should've put forth a standard and let multiple electronic-payment companies compete:
This would open the market to competition and encourage significant improvements in costs, privacy (there is no reason, why this service can't be as anonymous as phone-cards), and customer service... But one has to think like a free-market capitalist, rather than a Statist government functionary to come up with it...
You are let through. Then, a week or so later, you get a letter in the mail demanding the actual toll amount, plus $25 "video-toll fee" — their cameras record your license plate.
He bought the phone without even considering keeping it, thus acting in bad faith... If AT&T learns about this, I wouldn't blame them for refusing to let him off. Either way, the guy's action was unethical, and the claim, that it "only costs $99" is misleading...
Yes, right. "Voluntary". You can join the system "voluntary", or you'll have to enforce anti-child pornography laws yourself, and we'll be extra careful checking, that you do...
Another example of such "voluntary" joining are "E-ZPass" — you don't have to sign-up, but certain toll-plazas have no other means to pay any more. The other, I fear, will be the "public healthcare option", that law-makers are discussing...
Despite the major news-papers' best efforts, the bottom has fallen off of whatever container was holding support for Obama. Perhaps, Mr. Garcia is one of the remorseful buyers of the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" snake oil, and, somewhat literally, wants his money back?