The horrible transparency of the administration's agenda is staggering: fuck civil liberties; to hell with consumer rights; let's make civil infractions criminal offenses; let's use jackboot tactics to go after marijuana users; let's viciously and vindictively persecute those who try to expose government and corporate indiscretions by siccing our most petty, pea-brained people on them; let's lie, cheat, steal, bully, badger, and spy on everyone who could possibly be a threat. Essentially, the absolute primacy of government and corporate interests over individual rights. The only ones shittier are the Republicans, but not by much.
I honestly thought Obama would be different. Fuck me, right?!
There is an interesting and valid point being raised here. Maybe does not apply to all articles, probably not even to most, but it seems to me that there is not only potential for abuse, but actual abuse of Wikipedia by people with political and commercial agendas. And it should be discussed.
I put forward an extreme example to hammer the point home that you still need experts to write about many many topics. Yes, there is a high degree of self-organization involved with technical articles in that there is a very high correlation between readers and potential authors. But what happens as this correlation decreases, when it reaches that interesting grey area where the proportion of experts and lay-readers breaks even? And what happens with regards to articles on mildly controversial topics? And the really controversial ones, like climate change? Should all contributors be weighed equally, regardless of the strength of conviction? Is the truth simply a matter of reaching a consensus?
I'm not dismissing Wikipedia here. I think it's pretty much the Best Damn Thing on the internet. I am merely pointing out what I see as an interesting problem to which I see no satisfactory solution.
"There's a notion that the way to get the very highest quality information is to have an expert certify it. But there's actually little evidence that this is true."
Certain areas of human knowledge are advanced and enhanced by an open forum leading to something approximating the truth. But there are other areas, especially technical ones, where I don't see this being applicable, not by a long shot. How many people apart from an expert would be qualified writing an article on quantum optics or c++11? Really no one but experts should be writing these articles. I think the fully open nature of wikipedia is a potential weakness, but perhaps through what Wales refers to as a 'war of attrition', it usually gets sorted out for the best.
Still, when it comes to performing open heart surgery, do you want a comittee of concerned citizenes, or a so-called 'expert' heart surgeon?
SiMplY put, this was a sIlly MisunderstAnding, nothing More. WEll it remiNds me of this Time we TOok the dc MEtro from Crystal City to Archives AND ALong the way somehow we got Lost Inside the pentaGOn sTop. We ended up ASking THIS poLice Officer for instrUction. SuddenlY there was a BOoMing voice on the speaker nearBy adVising pEople to STay with their belongings. Then we noticed ALL of the trAins tHere were not rUnning. And Know why? BAckpack we had left in a caR!
FB is resorting to increasingly intrusive strategies to maintain ad-revenue and that great MBAmerican idea that companies must continue to grow or face heat death ("too infinity and beyond!"), and at some point it will start to drive away users, at which point it will be too late to stop the bleeding no matter what they try, and soon after all that will be left is a handful of grandmothers who didn't get the memo and aimless hordes of rabid beliebers, because that's who FB is really designed for.
OK, maybe I should rename the subject to "My hope"
This is obviously yet another blatant attempt by the federal government to discredit a real American hero. Not convinced? Look at the facts:
Heroin is known by several street names, including (but not limited to) smack, dope, junk, brown sugar, and WHITE HORSE
"Brian" is an Irish-Breton name meaning 'High'.
Krebs is German for 'Cancer', but in a pinch can also mean 'Crab'
'Crab' has four letters. Four in German is 'vier', which when pronounced sounds like 'fear' in English.
In July of 1963 a little-known top-secret project sanctioned by the CIA was started, which studied - among other things - the effects of illicit drugs on sea-faring crustaceans. The name of this project was Operation Dungeness. Among the members of the research team was - you guessed it - a German scientist of dubious political background, last name of Krabbe.
As the Dungeness scientists became deranged with drugs and power, their range of test subjects expanded from sea-faring crustaceans to rodents and finally to small orphan children
These orphas were harvested from foster homes and from the streets,to become nameless waifs, but one of these orphan children was nicknamed Brian Krebs ('High Crab') - a sick joke of the scientists
One dark and stormy night a lightning strike knocked out the main power transformer suppling power to the underground lab. In the ensuing chaos, Krebs escaped, but during the escape he was bitten by a radioactive sea-faring crustacean, and it left a mark in the shape of a 'K' on his outer right thigh
Armed with the truth, Krebs reached an uneasy truce with government goons, keeping them at bay - for now. But behind the scenes he wages a one man crusade against the mad CIA scientists who subjected him to a wide range of inhumane experiments as a nameless waif. Masquerading as a security expert, he uses his contacts in the underground to uncover evidence which will one day bring the perpetrators to justice.
But the government does not stand idly by: knowing that direct confrontation is out of the question, it instead opts for a campaign of slander, defamation, and sabotage. This latest attempt to deliver illicit drugs is not simply meant to defame and criminalize Krebs, it is a message. And that message is: "We are coming for you."
I could go on and on, but I believe these facts speak for themselves.
Legalized bribery ain't nothing new: selling indulgences, rent-seeking - hell, there's probably a wikipedia article about it.
What's so awful is that they're pissing on the very things which were supposed to make America different and "better". Certain tenets were supposed to remain inviolate, and if they were violated it was with the understanding that it was just that: a violation, an illegal act. But no more. That's what's so disturbing: that this shit is apparently completely legal. It's horribly ironic that this violation of the constitution is being perpetrated under the government of a former constitutional lawyer no less.
I guess we should have known better. About a lot of things.
From a purely political perspective, the surveillance-against-citizens promises to be an important wedge issue in the next election cycle. Voters are divided on it, even the politicians are divided on it. We'll just have to wait and see, as unsatisfying as that sounds: in a representative democracy that's how these things are "corrected"... or not.
I hope they just pound the hell out of the people who voted against this bill, be they R or D. I fear that it will all be forgotten one year from now.
This is how the world ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.
One of the raisons d'etre (arguably the raison d'etre) of the judicial branch is as a checksum of current laws against the constitution regardless of the opinion of the majority. So even if less than 1% of Americans thought this, it shouldn't (in theory) make a damn bit of difference. Of course the likelihood of a law being tested for constitutionality does depend on public perception.
But I learned a long time that the world don't play fair, and the courts are merely another means of expressing this fact. Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that so many critical decisions by the Supreme Court have been 5-4 splits? So these really really important issues pretty much come down to a coin toss.
Courts? Justice? Rule of Law? Please, you're killing me here.
Slashdot Mirror
The horrible transparency of the administration's agenda is staggering: fuck civil liberties; to hell with consumer rights; let's make civil infractions criminal offenses; let's use jackboot tactics to go after marijuana users; let's viciously and vindictively persecute those who try to expose government and corporate indiscretions by siccing our most petty, pea-brained people on them; let's lie, cheat, steal, bully, badger, and spy on everyone who could possibly be a threat. Essentially, the absolute primacy of government and corporate interests over individual rights. The only ones shittier are the Republicans, but not by much.
I honestly thought Obama would be different. Fuck me, right?!
We are all criminals.
There is an interesting and valid point being raised here. Maybe does not apply to all articles, probably not even to most, but it seems to me that there is not only potential for abuse, but actual abuse of Wikipedia by people with political and commercial agendas. And it should be discussed.
I put forward an extreme example to hammer the point home that you still need experts to write about many many topics. Yes, there is a high degree of self-organization involved with technical articles in that there is a very high correlation between readers and potential authors. But what happens as this correlation decreases, when it reaches that interesting grey area where the proportion of experts and lay-readers breaks even? And what happens with regards to articles on mildly controversial topics? And the really controversial ones, like climate change? Should all contributors be weighed equally, regardless of the strength of conviction? Is the truth simply a matter of reaching a consensus?
I'm not dismissing Wikipedia here. I think it's pretty much the Best Damn Thing on the internet. I am merely pointing out what I see as an interesting problem to which I see no satisfactory solution.
"There's a notion that the way to get the very highest quality information is to have an expert certify it. But there's actually little evidence that this is true."
Certain areas of human knowledge are advanced and enhanced by an open forum leading to something approximating the truth. But there are other areas, especially technical ones, where I don't see this being applicable, not by a long shot. How many people apart from an expert would be qualified writing an article on quantum optics or c++11? Really no one but experts should be writing these articles. I think the fully open nature of wikipedia is a potential weakness, but perhaps through what Wales refers to as a 'war of attrition', it usually gets sorted out for the best.
Still, when it comes to performing open heart surgery, do you want a comittee of concerned citizenes, or a so-called 'expert' heart surgeon?
Otherwise it's just this:
http://xkcd.com/303/
SiMplY put, this was a sIlly MisunderstAnding, nothing More. WEll it remiNds me of this Time we TOok the dc MEtro from Crystal City to Archives AND ALong the way somehow we got Lost Inside the pentaGOn sTop. We ended up ASking THIS poLice Officer for instrUction. SuddenlY there was a BOoMing voice on the speaker nearBy adVising pEople to STay with their belongings. Then we noticed ALL of the trAins tHere were not rUnning. And Know why? BAckpack we had left in a caR!
oops!
Bill Clinton.
Sometimes I just can't help myself. Most times. All the time.
Studies show that me picking a fight with, oh, just about anyone, will get my clock cleaned, a hunderd percent guarantee.
And who doesn't love a clean clock?
Make sure Cosmo Spacely doesn't find out.
Don't. I know he has.
"Oh, those Russians!"
(leaving aside the fact that nobody really cares)
FB is resorting to increasingly intrusive strategies to maintain ad-revenue and that great MBAmerican idea that companies must continue to grow or face heat death ("too infinity and beyond!"), and at some point it will start to drive away users, at which point it will be too late to stop the bleeding no matter what they try, and soon after all that will be left is a handful of grandmothers who didn't get the memo and aimless hordes of rabid beliebers, because that's who FB is really designed for.
OK, maybe I should rename the subject to "My hope"
Already downvoted to oblivion.
I see that nowhere is safe.
I tried that "Hey, cybercriminals delivered this heroin to me" routine and the cops didn't buy it.
Next time don't use FedEx
This is obviously yet another blatant attempt by the federal government to discredit a real American hero. Not convinced? Look at the facts:
I could go on and on, but I believe these facts speak for themselves.
yeah but the human drivers would also be remotely controlled
and the US courts drop another Brooklyn Third
well it is the Amazon duh
Should articles be written with intelligence and nuance when writing for a "general audience"?
Would you like flies with that?
*crickets*
Legalized bribery ain't nothing new: selling indulgences, rent-seeking - hell, there's probably a wikipedia article about it.
What's so awful is that they're pissing on the very things which were supposed to make America different and "better". Certain tenets were supposed to remain inviolate, and if they were violated it was with the understanding that it was just that: a violation, an illegal act. But no more. That's what's so disturbing: that this shit is apparently completely legal. It's horribly ironic that this violation of the constitution is being perpetrated under the government of a former constitutional lawyer no less.
I guess we should have known better. About a lot of things.
From a purely political perspective, the surveillance-against-citizens promises to be an important wedge issue in the next election cycle. Voters are divided on it, even the politicians are divided on it. We'll just have to wait and see, as unsatisfying as that sounds: in a representative democracy that's how these things are "corrected"... or not.
I hope they just pound the hell out of the people who voted against this bill, be they R or D. I fear that it will all be forgotten one year from now.
This is how the world ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.
One of the raisons d'etre (arguably the raison d'etre) of the judicial branch is as a checksum of current laws against the constitution regardless of the opinion of the majority. So even if less than 1% of Americans thought this, it shouldn't (in theory) make a damn bit of difference. Of course the likelihood of a law being tested for constitutionality does depend on public perception.
But I learned a long time that the world don't play fair, and the courts are merely another means of expressing this fact. Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that so many critical decisions by the Supreme Court have been 5-4 splits? So these really really important issues pretty much come down to a coin toss.
Courts? Justice? Rule of Law? Please, you're killing me here.
Leave it to the French to invent the sport of running away.