Before you sign up for a pager service, check the coverage map. We have used Skytel for years and their pages used to bounce of satellites and provide better coverage than cell phones, which was one reason we used a pager. Now they seem to use a local system and their coverage maps are very poor. We checked other pager services and they have the same problem.
We ended up signing up for a cell service which we use as a pager (it arrives as a text message). The Motorola Razr can be configured to beep loudly until you clear the 'page'.
These are just baseless rumors, repeated by people who are politically opposed to action on climate change. Here's an old political trick: When the facts aren't going your way, change the subject:
1) Politicize the issue: Change it from an issue of fact (is there anthropomorphically forced climate change?) to an issue of politics (don't let the liberals get their way on climate change).
2) Attack the credibility of the messenger: The {liberal media/elite/scientific community/whistle blower/evil corporation} has no credibility because they {have a dirty secret that makes them look bad/political bias (politicizing the issue again)/are conspiring against us}.
Once you learn to look for these strategies, they are so obvious and predictable, it's almost laughable. It happens again and again, especially whenever someone outside the establishment is involved; their opponents will do everything they can to smear their reputation across the headlines.
And the claims in the parent post are just more of the same: The facts of climate change are ignored, they just go after the journals (who apparently have no credibility) and a conspiracy against climate change skeptics. Of course, these claims have no basis:
We already has people claiming that the science is wrong and they are generally mocked and ignored because their works are published in major journals... if you don't tow the line on climate change, there is no room for you anywhere.
Who are these people? Who did the mocking? Who was mocked? Who conspired to block legitimate research? Can you name any names or incidents? As the article says, far more people want to be published than get published -- maybe the skeptics research just isn't very good, and that's why they aren't published.
Not that it matters: What material affect would it have on the extensively well-established theories on climate change? Would one skeptics' paper really make a difference? Ten?
The sun shines on all alike, the scientists and the skeptics. It's not like taxes, where there is a policy choice to be made. Your climate will continue to warm just as much as mine, no matter how many arguments you make against it.
Some pollution, such as carbon, causes global climate change. Some, like the chemicals in the batteries, has other consequences, but does not cause climate change (AFAIK). IMHO, climate change is the higher priority right now.
Also, fossil-fuels come with other costs: Wars, oppressive regimes, death and destruction, etc. I'll take the batteries.
First, thank you for your thoughtful answers, Fabrice and thanks for responding to my question. They have given me much more confidence in NewsTrust than I previously had.
Many answers mention that NewsTrust relies on its staff to maintain the quality of the site. For example, the staff posts right-wing material to balance the content and warns users who are too partisan.
My question is, why should readers trust your staff's judgment and fairness more than they trust other readers? Who watches the watchers? There is no perfect solution, of course. At the end of the day, every institution is run by humans, not angels, but how do you manage this issue?
I happen to lean left myself and I've read Newstrust daily almost since it came out; it's an excellent resource. But I think it's clear that the selection of articles leans left:
* For example, see this list of the most highly rated posts. You see the NY Times, Wash. Post, NPR, Huffington Post, The Nation, Alternet, FAIR, which range from moderate to liberal. What is missing is right-leaning publications, like the Weekly Standard, National Review Online, OpinionJournal, etc.
* Also, a few months ago, NewsTrust formed a partnership with a partisan liberal publication, The Huffington Post to find new about John McCain. Not surprisingly, the articles that were posted leaned very heavily left.
That's not what you said. Actually, you laid out a complex theory, going back to apes, of something you called 'genetic optimization'. Then you said, "people will identify with their optimization more than abstract and often illusory political concepts" like nation-states. You said future conflicts would unfold between "organic nations" of different genetic optimizations. I must have been crazy to read race-war into that; what was I thinking?
Now you mis-characterize your own post as something harmless about "ethnic differences between European groups"-- don't you think everyone can read it? -- just like your mis-characterization of Huntington and Cavalli-Sforza.
You've provided nothing to back up your theory. Calling me names, whining about being criticized, and fantasizing about my motives are not substitutes. I stand by what I said.
You're right, they don't have the exact same genes. But their genes are more similar than any other groups of humans.
My point was, if children of the same two parents can vary that much, what does it say about Burnitdown's theory that some broad genetic lineage determines anything of significance.
they died in great numbers often at very young ages.
Come on... you seem too well informed to think they died due to climate.
We are defining "manage" very differently. These small difficulties (accepting what you say) do not stop people from "managing". Lots of lighter-skinned people have lived in sunny climes and darker-skinned people lived in colder climes, and they managed. The rich white colonialist, tan or not, found a way to stay and colonize -- I've never read that they considered the weather to be an obstacle.
Nobody is claiming there aren't genetic differences between populations, or that the differences can't be quantified
At the same time, there is an important distinction to be made: You can take any two arbitrary groups of people, say Ohioans and Indianans, and probably find quantifiable genetic differences between them. But that doesn't mean that someone in Ohio has anything in common, genetically, with his neighbor.
Burnitdown and the AC posting above (probably the same person?) argue that the statistical variations imply that those within each group are genetically the same. I would guess that we all share genes with many, many groups. I probably share gene A with group X, and genes B&C with group Y, etc. etc. Most of all, we share most of our genes with most of humanity, not to mention many non-humans.
In fact, they also want to say that genetic commonality leads to political or social commonality. Humans share 96% of their DNA with chimpanzees [1]. I expect Burnitdown/the AC will join PETA next.
First of all, are all people with brown and black skin genetically the same? I very much doubt it. If you watch the race, you will see white skinned people from other countries running, and if they reach that level, they would beat 99.999999% of people of any skin color. Where is their natural disadvantage? Think of it this way: Americans win the most medals in swimming in the Olympics (or pick any sport where any country wins consitently); are we genetically superior in swimming?
My favorite is basketball. Lots of Americans with white skin think that those with black or brown skin have a natural advantage. The result? Most white skinned players in the NBA are from other countries. Maybe eastern Europeans also have a natural advantage. Do Latinos have a natural advantage in baseball?
Just because we see a pattern does not mean there is causation. Every morning, a rooster crows and then the sun rises, but the rooster isn't making the sun rise.
Your argument is basically: genetics play no part since my upbringing(environment) plays a part. Don't you believe that genetics can also play a part? You are probably one of those persons who believe that any other argument is heresy and that genetic differences should not be researched.
You don't know me, so I'm probably not one of the kind of whatever people you are thinking of.
Genetics has a role, but nothing like Burnitdown said. My point was that pointing to genetics and ignoring these other factors is ridiculous. Genetics probably don't affect the traits that Burnitdown hopes they do (not that anyone really knows what role they play), and probably not to a degree that is deterministic of anything important. Just look at any set of siblings, who can range from smart to dumb-as-rocks, from beautiful to homely, from athletic to klutz, all with the same genes.
Sure there are evolutionary adaptations, but even this statement takes them too far:
The fact that we now have sun glasses, sun screen, vitamin supplements and medicine means that "white" people can manage in the tropics and that "black" people can manage farther north.
People couldn't even manage before? I seem to recall many Africans brought to Europe and North America, who seemed to manage without much access to medical care. I don't recall the European colonialists bringing their sunscreen and vitamin supplements, but maybe that wasn't in the history books.
Seriously, the adaptations may be helpful, but they are hardly sufficient or necessary for anything of consequence.
If we all originated from africa, then why oh why did Europeans come back to africa many years later with significantly more advanced technology and knowledge than the local populace? I've asked this a million times, and not one person has had the balls to answer it truthfully.
I've asked millions of times how life began on Earth, and nobody can answer my question. That confirms the "painful" truth that it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Just get some cajones and admit it. I mean, I know you deny it becasue it's really an uncomfortable truth with uncomfortable consequences. I understand. If we were created a flying ball of spaghetti, with meatball eyes, think of what that says about us!
I never thought the race-war bozos would make it onto/. It's the usual propoganda: Name check someone prominent (who didn't say anything in support of your argument), add some bogus theory with no support (but imply that it comes from the famous names), through in a little kernel of plausibility (hey, there's racism right? Maybe we are all genetically pre-disposed to hate each other), and stir.
Much like different programming languages are optimized for different tasks, but you can create just about anything in just about any language, human populations are different based on the optimizations that came about through their branch divergence.
See? Hmmm... seems plausible. But think: Maybe I'm different based on the country I was born in, the way my parents fed me, raised me (the fact that I had loving parents), their wealth and social connections, the forces and choices that formed my personality. My education, the books I read, what I chose to study, my teachers and role models, how hard I worked at it, how well I networked, the career and jobs I chose, the person I married, the city I live in... Where does this genetic optimization come in?
I recommend the same books as burnitdown, only you should read them and not just name-check them. I read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations when it was first published in Foreign Affairs. It says nothing at all about genetics or "optimization", only super-national cultural groups called 'civilizations', which are genetically diverse (see list here ). You can read more here.
I haven't read Cavalli-Sforza, but The Economist seems to think that his work challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all. Hmmm... that seems opposite the ideas that burnitdown cited.
So Burnitdown is just talking out of his backside, start to finish. There is no outside support for it at all. I can't even imagine how it applies to Georgia, Russia, and North & South Ossetia. Does anyone know closely their populations correlate genetically? And why, on that basis, would South Ossetians want Russian more than Georgian citizenship? What the heck is 'Russian' genetically, anyway -- the country stretches from Europe to the Pacific; are they really genetically homogeneous?
Whenever I read something like this, I always try to remember: Think of the people who promolgate this theory of inevitable race-war hatred: From Milosovic to Bin Laden (who rails against Jewish people) to the Rwandan Hutu extremists to the KKK to, yes, Adolf Hitler. What have they accomplished? Then think of those who say that humans can integrate and live together regardless of supposed 'race', from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr., to Mahatma Gandhi and almost any current leader of prominence. Who has been more successful? Whose side would you rather be on?
Did you know that by the 3rd generation, most immigrants to the US marry across 'cultural' lines? Did you know that the rate of interracial marriage has increased ~700% in the US since 1970 [1]?
We tested and use Zoho and Google; both had serious collaboration bugs:
* Users could overwrite each other's others changes without knowing it. For example if Amy edits a cell (in the spreadsheet app) or text (in the word processor), and the update doesn't reach Bob in time, Bob could overwrite the same data with his own.
* Edits sometimes are not updated on other users' sessions quickly enough or, in some cases, at all.
Before you count on it for serious work, beware. It seems like a fundamental issue they should have anticipated on day one.
In a small/medium business, there are not enough systems that you need to worry having structured naming conventions. In those situations, I just make sure they are,
* 8 chars or less (for compatibility with everything)
* no special characters (punctuation, etc.)
* easy to spell and to pronounce
* hard to confuse with users/functions/places -- who knows what this server will be used for in the future. Save yourself the effort of renaming it.
Sometimes I pick a theme, but it's mostly for fun, or to make it easier to come up with a name.
Google clearly should have anticipated this. Governments have requested/required info on individual users before, as has been posted many times to/. For some countries, Google even moved user data off-shore, to protect it. Privacy advocates warned of this problem happening.
Google's rule is 'don't be evil', as long as it doesn't interfere with business.
But the problem isn't Google, it's us. We keep using Google, though we knew about the risks and problems. The day a company risks significant revenue over privacy, is the day they will pay attention to it.
Palm's demise was common wisdom when it was still dominant in the marketplace, and I never understood why. Even today, the several-year-old OS is better than Blackberry at everything but e-mail, and better than Windows Mobile at everything (I switched from Palm to Windows for a few years and just switched back; what a relief and pleasure to not be fighting my phone all the time).
I understand the OS can't multitask, but they've had plenty of time to correct that. I suspect it's too complicated for most consumers, and does not provided features needed by corporate IT for management, support and integration. But they've had plenty of time to correct that, too.
I'm sorry to see it die off. I love my Treo 755p. It's incredibly efficient, very reliable and, for my needs, highly functional.
Most DSL circuits, even sold by different vendors, go through the same facilities and sometimes the same equipment. For example, the local loop is usually the local telco's, no matter who your DSL vendor is. And many DSL vendors resell one of a few wholesale providers (e.g., Covad), so your data on both DSL lines could be going through the same wholesale provider's equipment/facilities. The same may be true of other technologies (e.g., fiber).
In trying to setup something similar, we finally settled on using cable for one circuit and fiber for the other. We know the cable company has its own local loop, and they assured us (FWIW) that they have their own facilities out to their upstream provider (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, etc.). Fiber would be Verizon. We would use DSL, but I'm concerned that it would end up in the same Verizon facilities.
Good luck. There are also routers that do fail-over, but I know that's not what you asked about.
The competition was also much weaker in the earlier years of "Major League" baseball. Until 1947, all the best Latino and African-American players were excluded. Could you imagine what the competition would look like today if the major leagues were re-segregated? Pujols, Santana, Bonds, A-Rod, Jeter, Ortiz, Ramirez, etc. etc.... all gone. The "Major Leagues" would be a joke, and it would debatable which league was better.
And even in 1947, there were only two non-whites in the majors, Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby. It was symbolic, but most of the best non-whites were still excluded. IIRC, the Tigers and Red Sox didn't hire their first non-white players until 1959. I've read that, if you had the talent of Willie Mays or Hank Aaron, sure you could get a job. But if you were just an every day player, or a backup, there was no room for you on the roster.
I once posted the question to rec.sport.baseball on Usenet: At what date could we say that, substantially, the number of non-white players in the majors was based on ability and not skin color? The consensus, FWIW, was the 1970s.
And that's why the IRS keeps a weather eye on large charities/non[not for] profits. There's no need for 'celebrity' board members.
History has shown that the IRS and other government agencies, from the SEC to the FDA, are not successful in preventing fraud. Just read the newspaper.
Given the independence of the editors (the volunteers) from the publishers (Wikimedia Foundation Inc.), I'm not too concerned about the content. Of course that independence only lasts until Wikimedia insists on seats on the Arbitration Committee or other editorial authority.
But they need a mechanism -- beyond 'trust us' -- to keep an eye on the money. That much money is just too tempting, not only for plain embezzlement but also for things like loans and investments for personal or friends' businesses, unreasonable expenses, etc.
Who controls the money? To whom are they responsible? Ultimately, the responsible party is the Wikimedia Foundation Board. While I don't believe fame and talent are highly correlated, and have no doubts about the board members, it would inspire more confidence if someone was putting a broader reputation on the line for Wikipedia. I want some on the board who have something serious to lose if things go wrong, like Mitch Kapor, Joi Ito, and others on the Mozilla Foundation board. In fact, I wonder why don't have people like already. Certainly it's prominent enough to attract them.
Finally, what mechanisms do similar organizations use to manage windfalls of cash?
Nevermind, I understand it now... for others still unsure after Minwee's clever explanation, I recommend the FAQ linked further up the thread. Thanks again Minwee.
Slashdot Mirror
Before you sign up for a pager service, check the coverage map. We have used Skytel for years and their pages used to bounce of satellites and provide better coverage than cell phones, which was one reason we used a pager. Now they seem to use a local system and their coverage maps are very poor. We checked other pager services and they have the same problem.
We ended up signing up for a cell service which we use as a pager (it arrives as a text message). The Motorola Razr can be configured to beep loudly until you clear the 'page'.
These are just baseless rumors, repeated by people who are politically opposed to action on climate change. Here's an old political trick: When the facts aren't going your way, change the subject:
1) Politicize the issue: Change it from an issue of fact (is there anthropomorphically forced climate change?) to an issue of politics (don't let the liberals get their way on climate change).
2) Attack the credibility of the messenger: The {liberal media/elite/scientific community/whistle blower/evil corporation} has no credibility because they {have a dirty secret that makes them look bad/political bias (politicizing the issue again)/are conspiring against us}.
Once you learn to look for these strategies, they are so obvious and predictable, it's almost laughable. It happens again and again, especially whenever someone outside the establishment is involved; their opponents will do everything they can to smear their reputation across the headlines.
And the claims in the parent post are just more of the same: The facts of climate change are ignored, they just go after the journals (who apparently have no credibility) and a conspiracy against climate change skeptics. Of course, these claims have no basis:
Who are these people? Who did the mocking? Who was mocked? Who conspired to block legitimate research? Can you name any names or incidents? As the article says, far more people want to be published than get published -- maybe the skeptics research just isn't very good, and that's why they aren't published.
Not that it matters: What material affect would it have on the extensively well-established theories on climate change? Would one skeptics' paper really make a difference? Ten?
The sun shines on all alike, the scientists and the skeptics. It's not like taxes, where there is a policy choice to be made. Your climate will continue to warm just as much as mine, no matter how many arguments you make against it.
Some pollution, such as carbon, causes global climate change. Some, like the chemicals in the batteries, has other consequences, but does not cause climate change (AFAIK). IMHO, climate change is the higher priority right now.
Also, fossil-fuels come with other costs: Wars, oppressive regimes, death and destruction, etc. I'll take the batteries.
First, thank you for your thoughtful answers, Fabrice and thanks for responding to my question. They have given me much more confidence in NewsTrust than I previously had.
Many answers mention that NewsTrust relies on its staff to maintain the quality of the site. For example, the staff posts right-wing material to balance the content and warns users who are too partisan.
My question is, why should readers trust your staff's judgment and fairness more than they trust other readers? Who watches the watchers? There is no perfect solution, of course. At the end of the day, every institution is run by humans, not angels, but how do you manage this issue?
Thanks again.
I happen to lean left myself and I've read Newstrust daily almost since it came out; it's an excellent resource. But I think it's clear that the selection of articles leans left:
* For example, see this list of the most highly rated posts. You see the NY Times, Wash. Post, NPR, Huffington Post, The Nation, Alternet, FAIR, which range from moderate to liberal. What is missing is right-leaning publications, like the Weekly Standard, National Review Online, OpinionJournal, etc.
* Also, a few months ago, NewsTrust formed a partnership with a partisan liberal publication, The Huffington Post to find new about John McCain. Not surprisingly, the articles that were posted leaned very heavily left.
What can NewsTrust do to address these issues?
That's not what you said. Actually, you laid out a complex theory, going back to apes, of something you called 'genetic optimization'. Then you said, "people will identify with their optimization more than abstract and often illusory political concepts" like nation-states. You said future conflicts would unfold between "organic nations" of different genetic optimizations. I must have been crazy to read race-war into that; what was I thinking?
Now you mis-characterize your own post as something harmless about "ethnic differences between European groups"-- don't you think everyone can read it? -- just like your mis-characterization of Huntington and Cavalli-Sforza.
You've provided nothing to back up your theory. Calling me names, whining about being criticized, and fantasizing about my motives are not substitutes. I stand by what I said.
You're right, they don't have the exact same genes. But their genes are more similar than any other groups of humans.
My point was, if children of the same two parents can vary that much, what does it say about Burnitdown's theory that some broad genetic lineage determines anything of significance.
Come on ... you seem too well informed to think they died due to climate.
We are defining "manage" very differently. These small difficulties (accepting what you say) do not stop people from "managing". Lots of lighter-skinned people have lived in sunny climes and darker-skinned people lived in colder climes, and they managed. The rich white colonialist, tan or not, found a way to stay and colonize -- I've never read that they considered the weather to be an obstacle.
At the same time, there is an important distinction to be made: You can take any two arbitrary groups of people, say Ohioans and Indianans, and probably find quantifiable genetic differences between them. But that doesn't mean that someone in Ohio has anything in common, genetically, with his neighbor.
Burnitdown and the AC posting above (probably the same person?) argue that the statistical variations imply that those within each group are genetically the same. I would guess that we all share genes with many, many groups. I probably share gene A with group X, and genes B&C with group Y, etc. etc. Most of all, we share most of our genes with most of humanity, not to mention many non-humans.
In fact, they also want to say that genetic commonality leads to political or social commonality. Humans share 96% of their DNA with chimpanzees [1]. I expect Burnitdown/the AC will join PETA next.
First of all, are all people with brown and black skin genetically the same? I very much doubt it. If you watch the race, you will see white skinned people from other countries running, and if they reach that level, they would beat 99.999999% of people of any skin color. Where is their natural disadvantage? Think of it this way: Americans win the most medals in swimming in the Olympics (or pick any sport where any country wins consitently); are we genetically superior in swimming?
My favorite is basketball. Lots of Americans with white skin think that those with black or brown skin have a natural advantage. The result? Most white skinned players in the NBA are from other countries. Maybe eastern Europeans also have a natural advantage. Do Latinos have a natural advantage in baseball?
Just because we see a pattern does not mean there is causation. Every morning, a rooster crows and then the sun rises, but the rooster isn't making the sun rise.
You don't know me, so I'm probably not one of the kind of whatever people you are thinking of.
Genetics has a role, but nothing like Burnitdown said. My point was that pointing to genetics and ignoring these other factors is ridiculous. Genetics probably don't affect the traits that Burnitdown hopes they do (not that anyone really knows what role they play), and probably not to a degree that is deterministic of anything important. Just look at any set of siblings, who can range from smart to dumb-as-rocks, from beautiful to homely, from athletic to klutz, all with the same genes.
Sure there are evolutionary adaptations, but even this statement takes them too far:
People couldn't even manage before? I seem to recall many Africans brought to Europe and North America, who seemed to manage without much access to medical care. I don't recall the European colonialists bringing their sunscreen and vitamin supplements, but maybe that wasn't in the history books.
Seriously, the adaptations may be helpful, but they are hardly sufficient or necessary for anything of consequence.
I've asked millions of times how life began on Earth, and nobody can answer my question. That confirms the "painful" truth that it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Just get some cajones and admit it. I mean, I know you deny it becasue it's really an uncomfortable truth with uncomfortable consequences. I understand. If we were created a flying ball of spaghetti, with meatball eyes, think of what that says about us!
I never thought the race-war bozos would make it onto /. It's the usual propoganda: Name check someone prominent (who didn't say anything in support of your argument), add some bogus theory with no support (but imply that it comes from the famous names), through in a little kernel of plausibility (hey, there's racism right? Maybe we are all genetically pre-disposed to hate each other), and stir.
See? Hmmm ... seems plausible. But think: Maybe I'm different based on the country I was born in, the way my parents fed me, raised me (the fact that I had loving parents), their wealth and social connections, the forces and choices that formed my personality. My education, the books I read, what I chose to study, my teachers and role models, how hard I worked at it, how well I networked, the career and jobs I chose, the person I married, the city I live in ... Where does this genetic optimization come in?
I recommend the same books as burnitdown, only you should read them and not just name-check them. I read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations when it was first published in Foreign Affairs. It says nothing at all about genetics or "optimization", only super-national cultural groups called 'civilizations', which are genetically diverse (see list here ). You can read more here.
I haven't read Cavalli-Sforza, but The Economist seems to think that his work challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all. Hmmm ... that seems opposite the ideas that burnitdown cited.
So Burnitdown is just talking out of his backside, start to finish. There is no outside support for it at all. I can't even imagine how it applies to Georgia, Russia, and North & South Ossetia. Does anyone know closely their populations correlate genetically? And why, on that basis, would South Ossetians want Russian more than Georgian citizenship? What the heck is 'Russian' genetically, anyway -- the country stretches from Europe to the Pacific; are they really genetically homogeneous?
Whenever I read something like this, I always try to remember: Think of the people who promolgate this theory of inevitable race-war hatred: From Milosovic to Bin Laden (who rails against Jewish people) to the Rwandan Hutu extremists to the KKK to, yes, Adolf Hitler. What have they accomplished? Then think of those who say that humans can integrate and live together regardless of supposed 'race', from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr., to Mahatma Gandhi and almost any current leader of prominence. Who has been more successful? Whose side would you rather be on?
Did you know that by the 3rd generation, most immigrants to the US marry across 'cultural' lines? Did you know that the rate of interracial marriage has increased ~700% in the US since 1970 [1]?
We tested and use Zoho and Google; both had serious collaboration bugs:
* Users could overwrite each other's others changes without knowing it. For example if Amy edits a cell (in the spreadsheet app) or text (in the word processor), and the update doesn't reach Bob in time, Bob could overwrite the same data with his own.
* Edits sometimes are not updated on other users' sessions quickly enough or, in some cases, at all.
Before you count on it for serious work, beware. It seems like a fundamental issue they should have anticipated on day one.
In a small/medium business, there are not enough systems that you need to worry having structured naming conventions. In those situations, I just make sure they are,
* 8 chars or less (for compatibility with everything)
* no special characters (punctuation, etc.)
* easy to spell and to pronounce
* hard to confuse with users/functions/places -- who knows what this server will be used for in the future. Save yourself the effort of renaming it.
Sometimes I pick a theme, but it's mostly for fun, or to make it easier to come up with a name.
Agreed, end users shouldn't know every privacy policy. It's impractical.
But they could press their legislators to pass laws that protect privacy. I don't think it's important enough, yet, for most people.
Google clearly should have anticipated this. Governments have requested/required info on individual users before, as has been posted many times to /. For some countries, Google even moved user data off-shore, to protect it. Privacy advocates warned of this problem happening.
Google's rule is 'don't be evil', as long as it doesn't interfere with business.
But the problem isn't Google, it's us. We keep using Google, though we knew about the risks and problems. The day a company risks significant revenue over privacy, is the day they will pay attention to it.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comics)#.22We_have_met_the_enemy.....22
Palm's demise was common wisdom when it was still dominant in the marketplace, and I never understood why. Even today, the several-year-old OS is better than Blackberry at everything but e-mail, and better than Windows Mobile at everything (I switched from Palm to Windows for a few years and just switched back; what a relief and pleasure to not be fighting my phone all the time).
I understand the OS can't multitask, but they've had plenty of time to correct that. I suspect it's too complicated for most consumers, and does not provided features needed by corporate IT for management, support and integration. But they've had plenty of time to correct that, too.
I'm sorry to see it die off. I love my Treo 755p. It's incredibly efficient, very reliable and, for my needs, highly functional.
Most DSL circuits, even sold by different vendors, go through the same facilities and sometimes the same equipment. For example, the local loop is usually the local telco's, no matter who your DSL vendor is. And many DSL vendors resell one of a few wholesale providers (e.g., Covad), so your data on both DSL lines could be going through the same wholesale provider's equipment/facilities. The same may be true of other technologies (e.g., fiber).
In trying to setup something similar, we finally settled on using cable for one circuit and fiber for the other. We know the cable company has its own local loop, and they assured us (FWIW) that they have their own facilities out to their upstream provider (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, etc.). Fiber would be Verizon. We would use DSL, but I'm concerned that it would end up in the same Verizon facilities.
Good luck. There are also routers that do fail-over, but I know that's not what you asked about.
The competition was also much weaker in the earlier years of "Major League" baseball. Until 1947, all the best Latino and African-American players were excluded. Could you imagine what the competition would look like today if the major leagues were re-segregated? Pujols, Santana, Bonds, A-Rod, Jeter, Ortiz, Ramirez, etc. etc. ... all gone. The "Major Leagues" would be a joke, and it would debatable which league was better.
And even in 1947, there were only two non-whites in the majors, Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby. It was symbolic, but most of the best non-whites were still excluded. IIRC, the Tigers and Red Sox didn't hire their first non-white players until 1959. I've read that, if you had the talent of Willie Mays or Hank Aaron, sure you could get a job. But if you were just an every day player, or a backup, there was no room for you on the roster.
I once posted the question to rec.sport.baseball on Usenet: At what date could we say that, substantially, the number of non-white players in the majors was based on ability and not skin color? The consensus, FWIW, was the 1970s.
The Advisory Board is more like what I was talking about. Thanks.
History has shown that the IRS and other government agencies, from the SEC to the FDA, are not successful in preventing fraud. Just read the newspaper.
Given the independence of the editors (the volunteers) from the publishers (Wikimedia Foundation Inc.), I'm not too concerned about the content. Of course that independence only lasts until Wikimedia insists on seats on the Arbitration Committee or other editorial authority.
But they need a mechanism -- beyond 'trust us' -- to keep an eye on the money. That much money is just too tempting, not only for plain embezzlement but also for things like loans and investments for personal or friends' businesses, unreasonable expenses, etc.
Who controls the money? To whom are they responsible? Ultimately, the responsible party is the Wikimedia Foundation Board. While I don't believe fame and talent are highly correlated, and have no doubts about the board members, it would inspire more confidence if someone was putting a broader reputation on the line for Wikipedia. I want some on the board who have something serious to lose if things go wrong, like Mitch Kapor, Joi Ito, and others on the Mozilla Foundation board. In fact, I wonder why don't have people like already. Certainly it's prominent enough to attract them.
Finally, what mechanisms do similar organizations use to manage windfalls of cash?
Nevermind, I understand it now ... for others still unsure after Minwee's clever explanation, I recommend the FAQ linked further up the thread. Thanks again Minwee.