The neatest part is that you can opt out- if you click a box that disappears after 20 seconds... wait to long, and they assume you are totally fine with it.
In fact there's no need for ActiveX; Microsoft provide the INS/ISP file format for this very purpose, configuring ISP details. Of course it's really laziness to a) turn off the old servers whilst people are still migrating and b) not setup cname records to migrate after a certain time.
That comment was made; then revised to around 30,000 (using a different methodology) over the whole bbc.co.uk web estate. That's still only 0.3% to 0.8% of users. The original figure was just for news.bbc.co.uk;
Compared to the rest of the BBC, more people visit the News site from an office computer, during the day. We have data from independent sources which confirms this
So the original figures for the news site could well be that low.
Mind you I find it hard to see anyone from the BBC saying GNU/Linux unless they're trolling for RMS.
I think you're getting hung up on the method name. There is no standard "delete" function that marks something as unused (dispose on the other hand sort of gets there). The article itself is unclear but I would assume that they were simply deleting the collision objects from a collection of potential hazards. Whilst that would remove the object from the collection itself it is *not* a delete. As references to the object existed elsewhere the object still exists (look ma, no null pointer exceptions) no delete happens. You cannot specifically say to the GC "We're done with this, delete it", the GC sweeps on a regular basis looking for objects with no references.
Would you really want the GC deciding that just because an object is no longer part of a collection it's safe to unsubscribe it from events and delete it? I know I wouldn't.
Or have really boring friends like me. So for those of us whose facebook friends are mostly fellow geeks could someone please share the profiles of hot girls with bawdy pics. For "research" purposes obviously. ktnxbai.
Ah but "the publishing freedom of the internet itself." Yes, true, but the freedom is there for you to publish yourself; not to force your publications on others at their cost.
"What's important to someone, a fan, a listener, a developer may not be important to anyone else and you have to work hard to prove notability." - His use of this sentence is a logical contradiction; the sentence shows how subjective 'notable' is.
Oh exactly; notability is subjective; no-one ever said it wasn't; and because of that there are guidelines; well known guidelines. The stratification of the guidelines acknowledges the subjectivity and requires measurable qualities; 3rd party coverage, reliable sources and independence from the subject.
The argument over disk space and room for everything is again covered in What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below.
This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
There seems to be a mass presumption here that simply because it's an electronic guide everything should go in. That's wrong.
There's scope in wikipedia to stop speedy deletes; {hangon} exists for this reason. Place that in your article and follow the guidelines on notability and the problem generally goes away (unless there's an abusive editor with a grudge in which case complain; you can do that). But the presumption that you can add an article and avoid the rules is wrong. If you want a wiki containing every web comic then set one up yourself, setup your own guidelines; just don't complain about someone else's rules on their property. Don't like the rules? Lobby for change. Constructively, instead of whining from the sidelines.
Well of course it depends on the article; but reading the whine in the linked web page they don't talk about asserting notability at all.
I'm familiar with a majority of these comics and can say that they are established works of solid quality and readership.
Is solid quality notable? Perhaps, if the majority of web comics don't have it; however it's a subjective opinion and when measuring notability it's facts that count. The article asserts that they're being deleted because of some bias against web comics; but it can't make that claim unless we could see the deleted articles in question. I'd venture a guess that not many made a claim to notability at all but instead just described the comic and gave a URL. There's nothing to stop someone reading the policy on notability and crafting an article which matches the criteria. If someone tags that for a delete they can always tag back with a hangon. It's how wikipedia works; for everything. Thinking that webcomics are somehow special and deserve more leeway is simply wrong.
Wow. Cry baby much? The notability claim is there for a reason, and it works, it stops ego listings. Consider the people who think they're in a band just because they've got a myspace account and put one mp3 up there. These get listed a lot. The are, by wikipedia rules, non-notable. Radio stations who get listed just because they exist? They're not notable. Open Source software? A bunch of it (including a couple of things I've worked on) has been marked non-notable and deleted.
What's important to someone, a fan, a listener, a developer may not be important to anyone else and you have to work hard to prove notability. Mere existence isn't enough. Has the comic you read won an award? Published an anthology? Those are pretty good indicators of notability. Having a URL? No. The whine that some comic was mentioned in a local newspaper was laughable; being notable in your own back yard, how is that good notability? Heck, if that counted I think I'll present a note from my mom saying I'm notable and list myself. Why should web comics have different rules to everyone else?
In case it's not legal I guess they need to find a way to solve it, or just not publish any photos from such countries.
Or they could, shock horror, do the non-evil thing and blur faces and number plates for every country, as opposed to waiting to be forced to think about privacy by a particular country's laws.
Did you just try and equate Slashdot with a classroom?
Works for me; you have clichés and groupthink within those clichés. You have the unpopular kids (Microsoft), the jocks who think their way is best and want all the attention (Linux) and you have the A/V club that everyone ignores (BSD). Heck you even have the unwashed undressed kid (Alan Cox).
Yes I realise this is the first time some of us have been called jocks. Deal with the humour:p
He didn't even mention Automatix or Easy Ubuntu at all.
Of course he didn't. Dell doesn't ship those. Read the article, he's reviewing as shipped by Dell.
Re:I'd only recommend the 360 version
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 1
The ending varies according to how you treat the little sisters. That's the limit of Bioshock's much marketing moral choice, it's even more narrow than Fable.
But that's not what anti-phishing tools are they for. They should flag fake sites, not legit sites serving spyware. Regardless of the hack, the site itself was still the Bank of India site, and not a phished site. An iframe embedded in legit source is not a phishing scam. A toolbar that only checks for URL legitimacy would be correct in not flagging the site.
That's one of the major criticisms against OpenID as well of course. Consider how you login to Open ID, you give the provider details away, it's up to the web site you're trying to log into to bounce you to your OpenID site, and it can just as easily bounce you to a phishing site. That's one reason why some OpenID providers are starting to use Information Cards for logins, side by side with the username and password boxes.
No. Especially as you're now able to associate an unmanaged card with your Live Login, and use that instead of the password. But it's a different solution, CardSpace is not single sign-on, LiveID is.
This isn't new at all; the DRM crack is still FairUse4WM, which has been around for years, all the "hacker" has down is document how to discover the file URL and download it, nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple, as nerds we're avid sci-fi fans and conspiracy nuts. Did you miss STARGATE.COM in the list? I knew that program was part of a cover up.
Not true; the FaceBook provides a secondary method of opting out, just like you can control lots of privacy tweaks already. There's a nice new option for "External Websites: You can edit your privacy settings for external websites sending stories to your profile." (this is not to say there aren't privacy problems with Facebook in general)
I guess actually looking before writing a news article would have been just too hard.
In fact there's no need for ActiveX; Microsoft provide the INS/ISP file format for this very purpose, configuring ISP details. Of course it's really laziness to a) turn off the old servers whilst people are still migrating and b) not setup cname records to migrate after a certain time.
That comment was made; then revised to around 30,000 (using a different methodology) over the whole bbc.co.uk web estate. That's still only 0.3% to 0.8% of users. The original figure was just for news.bbc.co.uk;
So the original figures for the news site could well be that low.
Mind you I find it hard to see anyone from the BBC saying GNU/Linux unless they're trolling for RMS.
I think you're getting hung up on the method name. There is no standard "delete" function that marks something as unused (dispose on the other hand sort of gets there). The article itself is unclear but I would assume that they were simply deleting the collision objects from a collection of potential hazards. Whilst that would remove the object from the collection itself it is *not* a delete. As references to the object existed elsewhere the object still exists (look ma, no null pointer exceptions) no delete happens. You cannot specifically say to the GC "We're done with this, delete it", the GC sweeps on a regular basis looking for objects with no references.
Would you really want the GC deciding that just because an object is no longer part of a collection it's safe to unsubscribe it from events and delete it? I know I wouldn't.
Or have really boring friends like me. So for those of us whose facebook friends are mostly fellow geeks could someone please share the profiles of hot girls with bawdy pics. For "research" purposes obviously. ktnxbai.
Ah but "the publishing freedom of the internet itself." Yes, true, but the freedom is there for you to publish yourself; not to force your publications on others at their cost.
Oh exactly; notability is subjective; no-one ever said it wasn't; and because of that there are guidelines; well known guidelines. The stratification of the guidelines acknowledges the subjectivity and requires measurable qualities; 3rd party coverage, reliable sources and independence from the subject.
The argument over disk space and room for everything is again covered in What Wikipedia is not
There seems to be a mass presumption here that simply because it's an electronic guide everything should go in. That's wrong.
There's scope in wikipedia to stop speedy deletes; {hangon} exists for this reason. Place that in your article and follow the guidelines on notability and the problem generally goes away (unless there's an abusive editor with a grudge in which case complain; you can do that). But the presumption that you can add an article and avoid the rules is wrong. If you want a wiki containing every web comic then set one up yourself, setup your own guidelines; just don't complain about someone else's rules on their property. Don't like the rules? Lobby for change. Constructively, instead of whining from the sidelines.
Well of course it depends on the article; but reading the whine in the linked web page they don't talk about asserting notability at all.
Is solid quality notable? Perhaps, if the majority of web comics don't have it; however it's a subjective opinion and when measuring notability it's facts that count. The article asserts that they're being deleted because of some bias against web comics; but it can't make that claim unless we could see the deleted articles in question. I'd venture a guess that not many made a claim to notability at all but instead just described the comic and gave a URL. There's nothing to stop someone reading the policy on notability and crafting an article which matches the criteria. If someone tags that for a delete they can always tag back with a hangon. It's how wikipedia works; for everything. Thinking that webcomics are somehow special and deserve more leeway is simply wrong.
That's not in violation of policy at all; it would come under db-web, an article about a web site with no claim to notability.
Wow. Cry baby much? The notability claim is there for a reason, and it works, it stops ego listings. Consider the people who think they're in a band just because they've got a myspace account and put one mp3 up there. These get listed a lot. The are, by wikipedia rules, non-notable. Radio stations who get listed just because they exist? They're not notable. Open Source software? A bunch of it (including a couple of things I've worked on) has been marked non-notable and deleted.
What's important to someone, a fan, a listener, a developer may not be important to anyone else and you have to work hard to prove notability. Mere existence isn't enough. Has the comic you read won an award? Published an anthology? Those are pretty good indicators of notability. Having a URL? No. The whine that some comic was mentioned in a local newspaper was laughable; being notable in your own back yard, how is that good notability? Heck, if that counted I think I'll present a note from my mom saying I'm notable and list myself. Why should web comics have different rules to everyone else?
I would like to provide an independent review of your service. Please send me some items so I might send some of them back.
It has a "blame Microsoft" angle, what more do you want?
Or they could, shock horror, do the non-evil thing and blur faces and number plates for every country, as opposed to waiting to be forced to think about privacy by a particular country's laws.
Works for me; you have clichés and groupthink within those clichés. You have the unpopular kids (Microsoft), the jocks who think their way is best and want all the attention (Linux) and you have the A/V club that everyone ignores (BSD). Heck you even have the unwashed undressed kid (Alan Cox).
Yes I realise this is the first time some of us have been called jocks. Deal with the humour :p
Of course he didn't. Dell doesn't ship those. Read the article, he's reviewing as shipped by Dell.
The ending varies according to how you treat the little sisters. That's the limit of Bioshock's much marketing moral choice, it's even more narrow than Fable.
There are ads? Damn my adblock for taking away revenue from slashdot's non-news stories.
Until you can boot off it it's not an OS, it's a piece of marketing nonsense.
Isn't that called "dating" in most school systems? (for us geeks anyway)
But that's not what anti-phishing tools are they for. They should flag fake sites, not legit sites serving spyware. Regardless of the hack, the site itself was still the Bank of India site, and not a phished site. An iframe embedded in legit source is not a phishing scam. A toolbar that only checks for URL legitimacy would be correct in not flagging the site.
That's one of the major criticisms against OpenID as well of course. Consider how you login to Open ID, you give the provider details away, it's up to the web site you're trying to log into to bounce you to your OpenID site, and it can just as easily bounce you to a phishing site. That's one reason why some OpenID providers are starting to use Information Cards for logins, side by side with the username and password boxes.
No. Especially as you're now able to associate an unmanaged card with your Live Login, and use that instead of the password. But it's a different solution, CardSpace is not single sign-on, LiveID is.
This isn't new at all; the DRM crack is still FairUse4WM, which has been around for years, all the "hacker" has down is document how to discover the file URL and download it, nothing more.
Well I thought assertion would be better than disingenuous pseudo question, but there you go, can't please everyone.