Google is not obligated to join you on whatever your crusade is, no matter how worthy. There are real plusses and minuses to anonymity, and it is reasonable for a social network operator to either allow or disallow pseudonymity.
If traditional publishers are locking up information for that long, I don't think we should be shy of not cooperating. If that knocks them over, they're too fragile for us to reasonably worry about them.
I only have a Kindle, but I have yet to come close to its battery limits. It seems to have a pretty good battery/power draw combination. I imagine the Nook is similar.
This is, as far as I can tell, just a stupid pissing contest.
Non-lawyers are "entitled" to question the ruling, but just like someone arguing with their cardiologist over plans for surgery, the person without the specialised training is likely to be pretty seriously off.
Hehe, that's a better satire of libertarians than what I would've done. Misunderstanding of facts, the CATO link (mischaracterising what it says is even better), the does-no-follow argument structure. My hat is off to you!
Did you think I'm not aware of this? I not only am aware of this, I advocate it. Everyone should build/maintain their notions of canon for any story where they take an interest. There is no truth in these matters, only interpretations. People should not consider the BBC to be the only authority on the versions of the stories they have in their heads. Stories branch, and they belong to every individual.
Read what I linked you. "Death of the Author" is the idea that anyone may construct a notion of canon/authenticity, and that the author's is not necessarily special. Just reading the title of the link is not enough.
There are 7 Canonical doctors, and then there's the remake series. I'd suggest you ignore the latter entirely, and start with Hartnell (1st) or Tom Baker (4th). The series varied reasonably in style over the years it ran; some of the doctors had story arcs while with others the episodes were closer to being one-off. It was a fantastic series.
Nope. Someone might decide that their ordinary family, street, or manhole cover deserves an article and some bunch of clueless inclusionists would show up to protect it out of principle.
Haven't made serious inroads against Apple and Microsoft? We're kicking their tukkas. With any luck, in the long run we're going to make mainstream commercial software a thing of the past.
Redhat's developers are skilled, fine people, but Redhat gets most of the code it ships from the opensource community, not their own people. Linux (and the BSDs) is a community, and the relationship between the vendors, the developers, and the users is not as simple as you'd think.
Redhat repackages projects from all over the community to make its OS, adding in their own contributions and doing QA. It's not entirely theirs. They know that lone geeks and smaller shops are not their revenue source; they'll get most of their funds from larger businesses that in another world would be Solaris or HP-UX users.
It's not a "cheap knockoff" or "hacked" when all that's changed is to swap out some logos and stuff. Redhat's efforts only work because they coexist with the community that writes the software. If this is "slowly killing the company", it's been dying from its birth. It has survived so far in this environment, in symbiosis with everyone else. Sure, it's different than how things work in other parts of the industry, but that doesn't make it broken.
Linux companies are not a baseball team, and they're not individually meant to grow into huge empires. They're based, in the end, on broad efforts of the community. When they can make a moderate profit and push Linux, great! However, it's in our interest that should they ever misbehave, they can be shunned and will feel pain or die. They should be wearing our leash, not the other way around. If you like wearing the leash of some commercial software company, go for it.
If a topic would not be notable from the perspective of 100 years in the future, it should not have an article. The purpose of a general-purpose encyclopedia is to convey codified academic knowledge to common people.
There are other wikis for non-encyclopedic stuff. Wikia has plenty of them (see Memory-Alpha as an example).
That's a fair point, although Cleveland and Pittsburgh are both excellent cities to pass through when building a northern corridor. Neither of them are small cities, so there would be reasonable utility to including them in any high-speed rail plans.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're using definitions at odds with both common usage and political theory.
We have a Democratic Republic, one of the many forms of Democracy.
Hear, hear!
This is in kind of poor taste.
Google is not obligated to join you on whatever your crusade is, no matter how worthy. There are real plusses and minuses to anonymity, and it is reasonable for a social network operator to either allow or disallow pseudonymity.
If traditional publishers are locking up information for that long, I don't think we should be shy of not cooperating. If that knocks them over, they're too fragile for us to reasonably worry about them.
Morality that applies to human beings and their residences doesn't necessarily generalise to nonhuman entities.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but rather that this isn't a great argument unless you can justify it further.
Are we former OS/2 users allowed to snicker yet?
I only have a Kindle, but I have yet to come close to its battery limits. It seems to have a pretty good battery/power draw combination. I imagine the Nook is similar.
This is, as far as I can tell, just a stupid pissing contest.
Non-lawyers are "entitled" to question the ruling, but just like someone arguing with their cardiologist over plans for surgery, the person without the specialised training is likely to be pretty seriously off.
Hehe, that's a better satire of libertarians than what I would've done. Misunderstanding of facts, the CATO link (mischaracterising what it says is even better), the does-no-follow argument structure. My hat is off to you!
Cue the horde of libertarians who think that it's Ma Bell's *right* to stifle innovation and how dare anyone criticise them!
You really haven't made an argument here, just insulted my position.
Did you think I'm not aware of this? I not only am aware of this, I advocate it. Everyone should build/maintain their notions of canon for any story where they take an interest. There is no truth in these matters, only interpretations. People should not consider the BBC to be the only authority on the versions of the stories they have in their heads. Stories branch, and they belong to every individual.
I'm referring to the field of literary criticism version of the trope, not the fandom one.
I'm not interested in the Terminator stuff, sorry.
Read what I linked you. "Death of the Author" is the idea that anyone may construct a notion of canon/authenticity, and that the author's is not necessarily special. Just reading the title of the link is not enough.
See Death of the Author. Anyone can define their own canon.
I don't recognise the movie or the remake series as canon; by that, Doctor Who ended a long time ago.
McCoy? Yeah, he was fantastic.
(on the off-chance it's not clear, I consider the remake series non-canon)
There are 7 Canonical doctors, and then there's the remake series. I'd suggest you ignore the latter entirely, and start with Hartnell (1st) or Tom Baker (4th). The series varied reasonably in style over the years it ran; some of the doctors had story arcs while with others the episodes were closer to being one-off. It was a fantastic series.
Nope. Someone might decide that their ordinary family, street, or manhole cover deserves an article and some bunch of clueless inclusionists would show up to protect it out of principle.
I imagine you were marked as flamebaiting because you pepper your posts with insults rather than just saying what you're trying to say.
Haven't made serious inroads against Apple and Microsoft? We're kicking their tukkas. With any luck, in the long run we're going to make mainstream commercial software a thing of the past.
Redhat's developers are skilled, fine people, but Redhat gets most of the code it ships from the opensource community, not their own people. Linux (and the BSDs) is a community, and the relationship between the vendors, the developers, and the users is not as simple as you'd think.
Redhat repackages projects from all over the community to make its OS, adding in their own contributions and doing QA. It's not entirely theirs. They know that lone geeks and smaller shops are not their revenue source; they'll get most of their funds from larger businesses that in another world would be Solaris or HP-UX users.
It's not a "cheap knockoff" or "hacked" when all that's changed is to swap out some logos and stuff. Redhat's efforts only work because they coexist with the community that writes the software. If this is "slowly killing the company", it's been dying from its birth. It has survived so far in this environment, in symbiosis with everyone else. Sure, it's different than how things work in other parts of the industry, but that doesn't make it broken.
Linux companies are not a baseball team, and they're not individually meant to grow into huge empires. They're based, in the end, on broad efforts of the community. When they can make a moderate profit and push Linux, great! However, it's in our interest that should they ever misbehave, they can be shunned and will feel pain or die. They should be wearing our leash, not the other way around. If you like wearing the leash of some commercial software company, go for it.
We know that articles on every brand of laptop or every episode of a TV show are clearly excessive.
Rules of thumb don't decide everything for you, but they make decisions easier.
If a topic would not be notable from the perspective of 100 years in the future, it should not have an article. The purpose of a general-purpose encyclopedia is to convey codified academic knowledge to common people.
There are other wikis for non-encyclopedic stuff. Wikia has plenty of them (see Memory-Alpha as an example).
That's a fair point, although Cleveland and Pittsburgh are both excellent cities to pass through when building a northern corridor. Neither of them are small cities, so there would be reasonable utility to including them in any high-speed rail plans.