Erm, a lot of companies, even those who who deal primarily with knowledge and who have internal communications issues, haven't embraced wikis. So either wikis aren't effective, or they're a bit out of the mainstream, and it's taking everyone a bit of time to recognize their value (you mean... anyone outside my department can edit these pages?? Is there a way to prevent that?)
Good thing people have backup systems in case their mobile computer gets stolen or faces some other mishap.
Really, if you've got valuable enough data to be encrypting it, you'd be nuts to not have it properly backed up as well. Though I guess bad decisions happen...
Press Section: multiple videos autoplay, forcing you to either mute you speakers or rapidly click all the pause buttons.
The three boxes ("About the book", "What is...", and "How to order") don't have enough black border around them. But more importantly, they look very similar to Google AdSense ads, and the positioning on certain pages makes this illusion worse. So you eye ends up automatically tuning out the most important content.
The red background is at least minimally functional (kudos for getting yellow text to be readable on a bright red background), but gaaah, I think I'm getting a sunburn from it.
Presumably some consideration would be given to YouTube for the fact that 1) YouTube is paying the bandwidth costs, so comedycentral.com's clip service doesn't have to, and 2) much like radio playing singles from an album, it's free advertising to hook people into being interested in the larger work. Granted, TV shows don't sell for $15 a pop, but the "best 5 minute" clip from each show is still a good advertisement... advertisers typically don't get even 20 seconds of someone's attention to sell their product... having a 5 minute ad show up every couple days on Digg has to be very valuable free marketing.
D'oh... The fact that Colbert could be found in so many places on YouTube was a running joke on Colbert itself, that's how integral YouTube had become. Though really, do 5-minute clips of the show threaten Comedy Central's revenue model, or help it? An iTunes purchase is never going to hit the front page of Digg, it's never going to be linked to en masse by blogs. I guess Comedy Central does post their own clips, but they seem hard to navigate through.
Well, unreasonable tags can be removed, if very few people agree with the tag.
Though Jimbo is rumored to be a follower of Rand [1], so maybe there's a conspiracy there.;) But no, really, there's no cabal, Jimbo doesn't force admins to take a POV stance like this. Like I said, Jimbo is really hestitant to take sides in a POV dispute, the arbcom doesn't like to either, and admins also should not. POV content issues are complicated, and someone forcing their view on everyone else would be very un-wiki.
By clicking on the history tab, you can generate a URL for a specific article version, and you cite that specific URL in your references. Special:Cite is a tool that helps with this (it used to be linked from every page, I'm not sure why it went away)
Seriously, it's 2006, and you're still using anything other than google and site: to search for something?
Okay okay, that is a bit of a cop-out (though it's mostly true). There are some cases where multiple articles exist, separated only by case [1]. Though in the most normal case, you're right, case insensitive search would be helpful. Don't quote me on this, but I heard that the devs might be working on it [2][3], but that there might be some DB indexing issue that they need to figure out before they're able to do this efficiently?
It's not necessarily an admin's job to force a POV change. If you feel that the POV is clearly off, you can put a {{POV}} tag on it to at least note that there's a real dispute over POV, or ask for outside assistance at the Village pump or elsewhere (POV is best countered by any experienced wikipedian through discussion, not necessarily by people using their admin bits to force a change).
Microsoft is betting that Windows and Office are so easy to use versus the open source counterparts that they can afford to decrease the ease of use a little bit with these shenanigans, and still come out on top. Which makes it all the more important to make sure open source software is as user-friendly as absolutely possible, so end users aren't forced to choose between two difficult options.
I know, what are the chances of that, huh? On the other hand, what's the point in including extra fluff that's DRM'd in a package where the primarily content isn't DRM'd? "Here's the cake you ordered, sir. And to thank you for your patronage, we've included a bonus poisoned pill. It's sugary though, yum!" "Umm, thanks... I'll just eat the cake."
YouTube has processes in place to receive DMCA takedown notices and remove identified copyright material. Napster didn't have a process in place to do this, and claimed to not be able to do so. The judge disagreed and said Napster had both the ability and duty to remove identified copyrighted material, but did not, so Napster was held liable.
But pat answers save time and space, since it discourages people from saying the same things over and over. Pat answer lists are entertaining because they take insight to create, but they're useful too.
Don't worry. Once consumers realize that the new "super duper" certs are being given out to phishers as well, Verisign will come out with a 3rd level of verification ("extra super duper certificates") that cost 50% more, and they'll have to go to a numbering or lettering scheme ("1", "2", "3"). This will also facilitate the periodic addition of new levels whenever consumers realize Verisign still isn't doing the job they say they're getting paid to do.
Why would you feel legally queasy about making your DVD player region-free? Regions are a silly restriction by the manufacturers, with the only remotely valid reason given is thta it minimizes piracy from China. So, be queasy about pirating DVD's from China, but why worry about making the player itself region free?
If true though, that would mean that Google paid $1.6billion for only: 1) the brand name, 2) the extra software features that YouTube had over and above Google Video that made YouTube more popular, and 3) the people who built those features. Certainly those are valuable, but are they really $1.6B valuable?
I carried a 17" laptop around on the Tokyo subways for a while. As long as you carry it around in a backpack, you're okay. Walking long distances to/from the train station with all the weight on a single shoulder strap or on a single hand is no fun.
Though this 20" laptop wouldn't fit in any normal backpack. 20" is obviously too much for a daily commute.
C'mon, modded troll? I was going for humorous. I'll bet money that prices will hit $2000 on EBay (the 360 hit $1500, and it didn't have quite the installed fanbase or supply shortages that the PS3 has), and I think there's a good chance some will crack $2500. (that's not exactly hatin' on PS3, since there obviously has to be demand for prices to go up that high)
Ebay was reported to be shocked that the auctions it routinely closes have hit $3000. Though Sony notes that with all the accessories you're required to buy with the Xbox 306, the PS3 is still a bargain.
So... compare that to the thousands of movies with guns or explosions in them, or where the plot involves murder. How is the game worse than any typical spy or murder mystery story?
Parallel importation... consumers love it, manufacturers hate it and try to get laws passed to prohibit it. Every once in a while, governments fall for their whining about economic losses, and pass those laws.
Maybe it's tortious interference? Whatever it is, saying things that are knowingly false about a product, causing stores to stop carrying a Teen (!!!) game, thereby causing the company to make less money (not theoretical losses, and not losses from vague FUD, but intentionally grossly mischaracterizing a product), that seems to me to be more serious than simply defaming one individual.
Slashdot Mirror
So when will the first DirectX 10 hardware be available?
Erm, a lot of companies, even those who who deal primarily with knowledge and who have internal communications issues, haven't embraced wikis. So either wikis aren't effective, or they're a bit out of the mainstream, and it's taking everyone a bit of time to recognize their value (you mean... anyone outside my department can edit these pages?? Is there a way to prevent that?)
Good thing people have backup systems in case their mobile computer gets stolen or faces some other mishap.
Really, if you've got valuable enough data to be encrypting it, you'd be nuts to not have it properly backed up as well. Though I guess bad decisions happen...
GGAAHH, that site is far from perfect.
Press Section: multiple videos autoplay, forcing you to either mute you speakers or rapidly click all the pause buttons.
The three boxes ("About the book", "What is...", and "How to order") don't have enough black border around them. But more importantly, they look very similar to Google AdSense ads, and the positioning on certain pages makes this illusion worse. So you eye ends up automatically tuning out the most important content.
The red background is at least minimally functional (kudos for getting yellow text to be readable on a bright red background), but gaaah, I think I'm getting a sunburn from it.
Presumably some consideration would be given to YouTube for the fact that 1) YouTube is paying the bandwidth costs, so comedycentral.com's clip service doesn't have to, and 2) much like radio playing singles from an album, it's free advertising to hook people into being interested in the larger work. Granted, TV shows don't sell for $15 a pop, but the "best 5 minute" clip from each show is still a good advertisement... advertisers typically don't get even 20 seconds of someone's attention to sell their product... having a 5 minute ad show up every couple days on Digg has to be very valuable free marketing.
D'oh... The fact that Colbert could be found in so many places on YouTube was a running joke on Colbert itself, that's how integral YouTube had become. Though really, do 5-minute clips of the show threaten Comedy Central's revenue model, or help it? An iTunes purchase is never going to hit the front page of Digg, it's never going to be linked to en masse by blogs. I guess Comedy Central does post their own clips, but they seem hard to navigate through.
Well, unreasonable tags can be removed, if very few people agree with the tag.
Though Jimbo is rumored to be a follower of Rand [1], so maybe there's a conspiracy there. ;) But no, really, there's no cabal, Jimbo doesn't force admins to take a POV stance like this. Like I said, Jimbo is really hestitant to take sides in a POV dispute, the arbcom doesn't like to either, and admins also should not. POV content issues are complicated, and someone forcing their view on everyone else would be very un-wiki.
By clicking on the history tab, you can generate a URL for a specific article version, and you cite that specific URL in your references. Special:Cite is a tool that helps with this (it used to be linked from every page, I'm not sure why it went away)
Seriously, it's 2006, and you're still using anything other than google and site: to search for something?
Okay okay, that is a bit of a cop-out (though it's mostly true). There are some cases where multiple articles exist, separated only by case [1]. Though in the most normal case, you're right, case insensitive search would be helpful. Don't quote me on this, but I heard that the devs might be working on it [2] [3], but that there might be some DB indexing issue that they need to figure out before they're able to do this efficiently?
It's not necessarily an admin's job to force a POV change. If you feel that the POV is clearly off, you can put a {{POV}} tag on it to at least note that there's a real dispute over POV, or ask for outside assistance at the Village pump or elsewhere (POV is best countered by any experienced wikipedian through discussion, not necessarily by people using their admin bits to force a change).
Microsoft is betting that Windows and Office are so easy to use versus the open source counterparts that they can afford to decrease the ease of use a little bit with these shenanigans, and still come out on top. Which makes it all the more important to make sure open source software is as user-friendly as absolutely possible, so end users aren't forced to choose between two difficult options.
Anything that's not DRM'd.
I know, what are the chances of that, huh? On the other hand, what's the point in including extra fluff that's DRM'd in a package where the primarily content isn't DRM'd? "Here's the cake you ordered, sir. And to thank you for your patronage, we've included a bonus poisoned pill. It's sugary though, yum!" "Umm, thanks... I'll just eat the cake."
* Copyright is de jure limited, but is de facto unlimited
YouTube has processes in place to receive DMCA takedown notices and remove identified copyright material. Napster didn't have a process in place to do this, and claimed to not be able to do so. The judge disagreed and said Napster had both the ability and duty to remove identified copyrighted material, but did not, so Napster was held liable.
HD-DVD Jon will save us... maybe it will take a ten line perl program this time.
But pat answers save time and space, since it discourages people from saying the same things over and over. Pat answer lists are entertaining because they take insight to create, but they're useful too.
Don't worry. Once consumers realize that the new "super duper" certs are being given out to phishers as well, Verisign will come out with a 3rd level of verification ("extra super duper certificates") that cost 50% more, and they'll have to go to a numbering or lettering scheme ("1", "2", "3"). This will also facilitate the periodic addition of new levels whenever consumers realize Verisign still isn't doing the job they say they're getting paid to do.
Why would you feel legally queasy about making your DVD player region-free? Regions are a silly restriction by the manufacturers, with the only remotely valid reason given is thta it minimizes piracy from China. So, be queasy about pirating DVD's from China, but why worry about making the player itself region free?
If true though, that would mean that Google paid $1.6billion for only: 1) the brand name, 2) the extra software features that YouTube had over and above Google Video that made YouTube more popular, and 3) the people who built those features. Certainly those are valuable, but are they really $1.6B valuable?
I carried a 17" laptop around on the Tokyo subways for a while. As long as you carry it around in a backpack, you're okay. Walking long distances to/from the train station with all the weight on a single shoulder strap or on a single hand is no fun.
Though this 20" laptop wouldn't fit in any normal backpack. 20" is obviously too much for a daily commute.
C'mon, modded troll? I was going for humorous. I'll bet money that prices will hit $2000 on EBay (the 360 hit $1500, and it didn't have quite the installed fanbase or supply shortages that the PS3 has), and I think there's a good chance some will crack $2500. (that's not exactly hatin' on PS3, since there obviously has to be demand for prices to go up that high)
Ebay was reported to be shocked that the auctions it routinely closes have hit $3000. Though Sony notes that with all the accessories you're required to buy with the Xbox 306, the PS3 is still a bargain.
So... compare that to the thousands of movies with guns or explosions in them, or where the plot involves murder. How is the game worse than any typical spy or murder mystery story?
Parallel importation... consumers love it, manufacturers hate it and try to get laws passed to prohibit it. Every once in a while, governments fall for their whining about economic losses, and pass those laws.
Maybe it's tortious interference? Whatever it is, saying things that are knowingly false about a product, causing stores to stop carrying a Teen (!!!) game, thereby causing the company to make less money (not theoretical losses, and not losses from vague FUD, but intentionally grossly mischaracterizing a product), that seems to me to be more serious than simply defaming one individual.