> The basis of the site is for any random person to add information.
This is certainly not the basis for the site. The wiki is not a collection of random information... I didn't say "any person to add random information." I said "any random person to add information." "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." In other words, you don't need a PhD in physics to contribute to physics articles. You should only require some knowledge, writing skills, and references to sources. But it's not an encyclopedia that anyone can edit if there's territorial issues or bias against new users.
The GP's point is that one shouldn't need to buddy up or create their own territory on Wikipedia. The basis of the site is for any random person to add information. So if people delete things that "invade" their territory or that don't have the support of a long-time contributor than the site's being abused in a sense. It's deviated from its mission if new users are treated this way.
But they couldn't get him cuffed until they tasered him.
Please google for "taser standard operating procedure" and show us one instance where tasing while under control is allowed. He was pinned to the ground.
Please don't dilute that word by throwing it around in such a nonchalant manner.
Being unnecessarily shocked with electricity by a government force is a form of torture in my view. Please don't ignore the word because you feel the force was necessary when S.O.P. states it's not.
If this weren't a case of excessive force it wouldn't have about 1000 comments already. The consensus is quite clear that there was a problem here.
he got tasered because he actively resisted arrest.
Police are allowed to taser an individual who is under complete physical control by multiple police officers? More than one police officer was on top of him and the only problem at this point was his hands not being behind his back to be cuffed. He was tortured for resisting, not tased to be brought under control.
He just keeps rambling on and doesn't even wait for Kerry to respond. After reading the blurb, I felt sorry for him. After watching the video, I don't anymore.
So you didn't watch the video. He prefaced his questions and asked three in about 2 minutes (or so), and then didn't listen to the answer because he was forcefully removed. Kerry said, "I'd like to answer that question" as he was being taken away. So how, exactly, was he supposed to wait for Kerry to respond? The police didn't want to wait.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom to hijack someone else's audience or freedom to use their sound equipment.
Senator Kerry (you know, that guy on the stage) pointed to him, acknowledged his desire to ask a question, and let him speak. Is a co-pilot hijacking a plane when the pilot hands him the controls?
Should he have been given unlimited time, effectively doing a DOS attack on other people who had questions to ask?
Should he have been physically pulled away by police for taking less than 2 minutes to ask a question? I can see turning off the mic after 3 or 4 minutes. But physical force for just a couple of minutes is extremely excessive.
It looks in the video like the police were asked to intervene when he asked about Skull & Bones. Because of course by then everyone knows he's a lunatic. Should he have been stopped during his prior question about impeachment? Which question or what amount of time make it a DOS attack?
I have. My first thought was to import all of Wikipedia's computer related articles, but then I decided to do it one at a time so I could edit. Somewhere around one-third to one-half of Docforge's articles are edited Wikipedia articles (with proper attribution at the bottom). Others I chose to start from scratch because they talk more to the techies than as a general reference. And many other articles on Docforge were written by visitors before I got to importing the page. I'm still adding Wikipedia content, it's just taking a long time.
Thanks for the feedback, even if it is on the wrong site.;)
Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers.
That assumes that only Microsoft could have brought about the proliferation of the common desktop computer. I personally think that Microsoft was a major factor, but someone else would have stepped in later had they never existed. This is just plain arrogance, and easy to state since there's no way to know what would have been otherwise.
Maybe, but this is happening in Australia. I can almost understand not reading the article, but see the first and second sentences of the summary. sheesh
There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also... placing technical hurdles to exercise it.
How is that not a conflict? They're countering their own defense of the right. I agree they have no obligation to provide the tools, but they intentionally (actively) cripple the tools they sell to prevent fair use. They spend money creating the hurdle. They also attempt to counter fair use rights in their own software licenses (i.e. legal hurdles on top of technical hurdles). Seems like a logical conflict to me.
He's far from the first to leave the administration.
And how's this ship burning? It doesn't appear anyone is going to be indicted for any more crimes. Impeachment proceedings haven't begun. And it's their second term so no worries over re-election. Bush doesn't care about his lack of popularity as he's already accomplished most of his goals.
The good thing is it only covers a very small section of the city. There are very active civil liberties groups in NYC. As soon as there is any abuse (that they discover, of course) they will be making a huge stink.
In NYC most of the cameras are private. The police aren't actively using these private cameras to monitor citizens. They don't have anywhere near the manpower to make this possible even if they wanted to. Camera footage is typically only viewed by the police if it happened to catch a crime.
That's not to say we won't have a problem in the future. But as of right now I'm not too worried about it in NYC.
But these particular images appear to be doctored to enhance the message or provide a visually appealing background. They're probably doctored by the source. Therefore the doctored versions are what the original creators intended to express. So there's no reason for us to ignore these videos.
If these were altered in a way that seemed to drastically change the message then it would be a different story.
I'll be even more excited if they do work on the searching algorithms, which is what makes or breaks search engines, not the amount of content they have.
So you're saying it's not the size that matters, but how they use it.
Interesting. I'm sure I've heard this somewhere before...
Slashdot Mirror
Have the shirts in the grab box been worn?
If a sports celebrity gives a worn jersey to a fan, that's cool. But an old sweaty shirt from a Slashdot admin isn't quite the same thing.
This is certainly not the basis for the site. The wiki is not a collection of random information... I didn't say "any person to add random information." I said "any random person to add information." "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." In other words, you don't need a PhD in physics to contribute to physics articles. You should only require some knowledge, writing skills, and references to sources. But it's not an encyclopedia that anyone can edit if there's territorial issues or bias against new users.
The GP's point is that one shouldn't need to buddy up or create their own territory on Wikipedia. The basis of the site is for any random person to add information. So if people delete things that "invade" their territory or that don't have the support of a long-time contributor than the site's being abused in a sense. It's deviated from its mission if new users are treated this way.
But they couldn't get him cuffed until they tasered him.
Please google for "taser standard operating procedure" and show us one instance where tasing while under control is allowed. He was pinned to the ground.
Please don't dilute that word by throwing it around in such a nonchalant manner.
Being unnecessarily shocked with electricity by a government force is a form of torture in my view. Please don't ignore the word because you feel the force was necessary when S.O.P. states it's not.
If this weren't a case of excessive force it wouldn't have about 1000 comments already. The consensus is quite clear that there was a problem here.
he got tasered because he actively resisted arrest.
Police are allowed to taser an individual who is under complete physical control by multiple police officers? More than one police officer was on top of him and the only problem at this point was his hands not being behind his back to be cuffed. He was tortured for resisting, not tased to be brought under control.
He just keeps rambling on and doesn't even wait for Kerry to respond. After reading the blurb, I felt sorry for him. After watching the video, I don't anymore.
So you didn't watch the video. He prefaced his questions and asked three in about 2 minutes (or so), and then didn't listen to the answer because he was forcefully removed. Kerry said, "I'd like to answer that question" as he was being taken away. So how, exactly, was he supposed to wait for Kerry to respond? The police didn't want to wait.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom to hijack someone else's audience or freedom to use their sound equipment.
Senator Kerry (you know, that guy on the stage) pointed to him, acknowledged his desire to ask a question, and let him speak. Is a co-pilot hijacking a plane when the pilot hands him the controls?
Should he have been given unlimited time, effectively doing a DOS attack on other people who had questions to ask?
Should he have been physically pulled away by police for taking less than 2 minutes to ask a question? I can see turning off the mic after 3 or 4 minutes. But physical force for just a couple of minutes is extremely excessive.
It looks in the video like the police were asked to intervene when he asked about Skull & Bones. Because of course by then everyone knows he's a lunatic. Should he have been stopped during his prior question about impeachment? Which question or what amount of time make it a DOS attack?
I have. My first thought was to import all of Wikipedia's computer related articles, but then I decided to do it one at a time so I could edit. Somewhere around one-third to one-half of Docforge's articles are edited Wikipedia articles (with proper attribution at the bottom). Others I chose to start from scratch because they talk more to the techies than as a general reference. And many other articles on Docforge were written by visitors before I got to importing the page. I'm still adding Wikipedia content, it's just taking a long time.
;)
Thanks for the feedback, even if it is on the wrong site.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Docforge is not. There are articles on Docforge which could never be added to Wikipedia.
Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers.
That assumes that only Microsoft could have brought about the proliferation of the common desktop computer. I personally think that Microsoft was a major factor, but someone else would have stepped in later had they never existed. This is just plain arrogance, and easy to state since there's no way to know what would have been otherwise.
The rocket carrying the three-metric ton orbiter...
Are you sure about that?
I need to remind myself to not go for the +1 funnies when the /. crowd is cranky...
:)
At least wait until 3:15EST when we've just come back from our 3rd coffee break. Thanks.
Maybe, but this is happening in Australia. I can almost understand not reading the article, but see the first and second sentences of the summary. sheesh
There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also... placing technical hurdles to exercise it.
How is that not a conflict? They're countering their own defense of the right. I agree they have no obligation to provide the tools, but they intentionally (actively) cripple the tools they sell to prevent fair use. They spend money creating the hurdle. They also attempt to counter fair use rights in their own software licenses (i.e. legal hurdles on top of technical hurdles). Seems like a logical conflict to me.
SP1 for Vista also comes with an update to the EULA. All you Vista users are going to read it, right?
Right?
It might require you to hand over your first born to Microsoft to get unlocked high-def video to work, so I suggest reading it.
It was just a joke, akin to Homer's, "And here I am using my own lungs like a sucker."
He's far from the first to leave the administration.
And how's this ship burning? It doesn't appear anyone is going to be indicted for any more crimes. Impeachment proceedings haven't begun. And it's their second term so no worries over re-election. Bush doesn't care about his lack of popularity as he's already accomplished most of his goals.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of this plan.
The good thing is it only covers a very small section of the city. There are very active civil liberties groups in NYC. As soon as there is any abuse (that they discover, of course) they will be making a huge stink.
In NYC most of the cameras are private. The police aren't actively using these private cameras to monitor citizens. They don't have anywhere near the manpower to make this possible even if they wanted to. Camera footage is typically only viewed by the police if it happened to catch a crime.
That's not to say we won't have a problem in the future. But as of right now I'm not too worried about it in NYC.
When I read the title I was hoping to see a video of smartphones getting shot to pieces. Damn!
That's a very good point. I hadn't considered that.
But these particular images appear to be doctored to enhance the message or provide a visually appealing background. They're probably doctored by the source. Therefore the doctored versions are what the original creators intended to express. So there's no reason for us to ignore these videos.
If these were altered in a way that seemed to drastically change the message then it would be a different story.
Or you could just stop reading Slashdot at work...
Silly idea, I know.
I'll be even more excited if they do work on the searching algorithms, which is what makes or breaks search engines, not the amount of content they have.
So you're saying it's not the size that matters, but how they use it.
Interesting. I'm sure I've heard this somewhere before...