He'd also be free to wait for copyright to expire, assuming that he will live for another 200 years. And assuming that companies didn't cheat even those ridiculously long protections by wanting to use contractesque restrictions when it suits them, and then go ahead and use copyrightesque when that suits them, and denying the limitations of either when it doesn't suit them. So, I say that he should get off his lazy ass, and help crack it in a way that they can't defeat.
The US actually does have a moderately old government by the standards of such.
However, the parent poster is referring to our communications networks. Which, if not the oldest in the world, do indeed rank up there. Pick whichever one you want, from postal service, to telegraph and telephone, even radio, we rank right up there. Our favorite of them all, the internet, was born here.
Windows is awfully cathedral like, because what Bill or Balmer says goes, and that's the only version of windows I'm ever likely to see.
Linux on the other hand, I can muck around in the code myself however I like. I can include other people's patches that Linus *does not* approve, or I can even change it myself (though between you and me, don't expect it to do a damn thing other than crash).
No, they aren't mathematically identical. Insurance costs are a calculatable cost for the insurance industry as a whole. Discounting for one group will increase that cost (and they might pay for it out of their profit margin), while fining another group lowers their cost (which will almost certainly feed their profit margin). It is not mathematically identical, either to insurance companies, or to their customers.
Think of it this way... if they select your neighbor to get a $100 a year discount on his premium, but leave yours untouched, is that a negative, positive, or neutral change in your own costs? At least for me, it's completely neutral. Sure, I might be jealous of my neighbor, just as if he was a $5000 scratch-off. But it's still neutral.
Only if your warped perspective considers it equivalent to them raising your own premium by $100, will you call them mathematically identical.
The real danger, is that they play deceptive accounting games, and on such a large scale, that you and I will never realize that we're being cheated.
Because simply boycotting every single computer manufacturer is an option, when some industry standards group mandates that it be included with each motherboard produced for sale in the US.
Private manufacturers will listen, too, because in the bizarro universe that you inhabit, the buying power of a few concerned citizens like yourself overshadows the gargantuan purchasing clout of Fortune 500 companies that order 10,000 machines at a time.
Do we have 35 million drug users in prison? No. Instead, they selectively send those they dislike the most to prison, and let the rest churn through misdemeanors in court, creating a large dsyfunctional rehab industry and a permanent underclass.
The funny part? Supposing that I were in charge of penalizing them in the long lamented antitrust case, this is just sanction I would have dropped on them... that is, barring them from applying for, owning, or exclusively licensing any patent in the US for a period of not less than 40 years.
That is, supposing that I didn't just dissolve the company, auction the assets, and distribute the proceeds to shareholders.
Except that we didn't screw things up right away, and that if you look closely, when the billionaire businessmen did start corrupting things they were all financed by the bank of london. Strange that. Let me go out on a limb here, and speculate that even though they do tend to screw things up a bit, they're not responsible for the worst of things, but pawns themselves. Well, rooks maybe, but they're sure as hell not in charge of this game of chess.
Nothing of consequence is ever allowed to be decided by a school board.
And it's moot anyway, seeing that the parents themselves have been trained to be livestock all their lives, of course they won't mind it if the same is done to their children. Strangely, when this is abused somehow to rape/kill/have-an-affair-with a 16 yr old girl, it will be downplayed, even though incidents similar to what I described are often used to justify the telescreens.
Like the snobby blue-blooded doctor who is actually a very talented surgeon, he still doesn't want to take emergency measures to save the life of this 1 bum he finds stabbed in the middle of the alley. It would get his hands dirty. Who would pay his $75,000 fee? What if other bums think they deserve some care for free?
Better to just stay out of the alley, and make snobbish jokes about it at cocktail parties.
Actually, it seems that you seem to credit Wikipedia with little value, if it's not 99.999% percent perfect from day one. Wikipedia will certainly have this "quibble" incorporated someday, maybe it would have had it tomorrow even if he hadn't put the spotlight on it, or maybe it would have been ten years.
And it always strikes me, that the people that bitch the loudest, are those that like to point out mistakes, and not fix them.
Barring controversial subjects, most people never remove any text at all. When they do, it's usually reverted back, near as I can tell.
Assuming he had edited it, I expect that the worst that might have happened, is someone moving his paragraph to another part of the article, or maybe rewording it. Though, the man does seem to have a way with words, anyone that would do that to his is probably a fool.
I think anyone that removed his edits entirely would be considered a vandal, and it would be reverted quite quickly.
I have a two word response for that: political blogs. Many people are perfectly happy to get their Important Information a blog by somebody who can't name their sources and who has no responsibility to be accurate.
You know what I find hilarious? The elites are happy to have people repeating lies and half-truths when it serves them... but the few times that rumors are repeated such without being manipulated by someone's propaganda machine, it is quite often dead on accurate, and not the fantastical bullshit the elites would have you believe anything that they don't control to be. Could it be that human societies have been around a long time, and we would have long since gotten rid of rumor-mongering if it was somehow useless?
Most people I know want to know political truth, and not just what the popular belief is.
I've seen nothing like mediocrity, as a matter of fact I see a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs trying their best to refine a free resource without turning it into a bureaucracy. If nothing else, they aren't deciding to turn it into a stodgy 100 yr old english paper published set of volumes that the average person can't afford without mortgaging their home.
"Like" in this context means only that it meets whatever standards are considered important. It's actually a fallacy if you intentionally used the wrong definition of "like" just to score rhetoric points. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's anything other than slashdot's only 7yr old commenter, there is no reason to suppose that he meant the "prefers the object with an irrational fondness or infatuation" definition.
What's worse, several people felt that you should be modded up for this crap...
Just telling him to "edit it himself" is missing the point. I don't have the knowledge or time to write my own encyclopedia.
Fallacy. Of course you don't have time to write your own encyclopedia... that's the point. You probably have time to add an article, and if not that, to edit an existing article. A 3 sentence paragraph in the Alexander Hamilton article would do much to alleviate his concern... even accounting for him having to learn how to use wiki, that's what? 15 minutes?
Besides, it's not such a horrible article, even as it was. Growing up in a rural US town, my elementary "social studies" books were probably worse in comparison. To someone not in europe or north america, this may be the only encyclopedia they ever see. If that is the case, quibbling over a disputed birthdate seems silly.
Slashdot Mirror
He'd also be free to wait for copyright to expire, assuming that he will live for another 200 years. And assuming that companies didn't cheat even those ridiculously long protections by wanting to use contractesque restrictions when it suits them, and then go ahead and use copyrightesque when that suits them, and denying the limitations of either when it doesn't suit them. So, I say that he should get off his lazy ass, and help crack it in a way that they can't defeat.
Not just that, even our postal service ranks up there.
The first arpanet link was in California, in 1969.
The US actually does have a moderately old government by the standards of such.
However, the parent poster is referring to our communications networks. Which, if not the oldest in the world, do indeed rank up there. Pick whichever one you want, from postal service, to telegraph and telephone, even radio, we rank right up there. Our favorite of them all, the internet, was born here.
Actually, it's more like trying to do that, but forgetting to take the first plate off, and having both readable.
Windows is awfully cathedral like, because what Bill or Balmer says goes, and that's the only version of windows I'm ever likely to see.
Linux on the other hand, I can muck around in the code myself however I like. I can include other people's patches that Linus *does not* approve, or I can even change it myself (though between you and me, don't expect it to do a damn thing other than crash).
How is that cathedral like?
And how is java superior in any significant way?
No, they aren't mathematically identical. Insurance costs are a calculatable cost for the insurance industry as a whole. Discounting for one group will increase that cost (and they might pay for it out of their profit margin), while fining another group lowers their cost (which will almost certainly feed their profit margin). It is not mathematically identical, either to insurance companies, or to their customers.
Think of it this way... if they select your neighbor to get a $100 a year discount on his premium, but leave yours untouched, is that a negative, positive, or neutral change in your own costs? At least for me, it's completely neutral. Sure, I might be jealous of my neighbor, just as if he was a $5000 scratch-off. But it's still neutral.
Only if your warped perspective considers it equivalent to them raising your own premium by $100, will you call them mathematically identical.
The real danger, is that they play deceptive accounting games, and on such a large scale, that you and I will never realize that we're being cheated.
Because simply boycotting every single computer manufacturer is an option, when some industry standards group mandates that it be included with each motherboard produced for sale in the US.
Private manufacturers will listen, too, because in the bizarro universe that you inhabit, the buying power of a few concerned citizens like yourself overshadows the gargantuan purchasing clout of Fortune 500 companies that order 10,000 machines at a time.
Inner party members can always turn off the bowel movement recorder when it suits them. They're allowed that privilege.
Wrong.
Do we have 35 million drug users in prison? No. Instead, they selectively send those they dislike the most to prison, and let the rest churn through misdemeanors in court, creating a large dsyfunctional rehab industry and a permanent underclass.
The same will happen with IP infringement.
I'd be satisfied with most people if they'd just stop producing methane.
The funny part? Supposing that I were in charge of penalizing them in the long lamented antitrust case, this is just sanction I would have dropped on them... that is, barring them from applying for, owning, or exclusively licensing any patent in the US for a period of not less than 40 years.
That is, supposing that I didn't just dissolve the company, auction the assets, and distribute the proceeds to shareholders.
The one I tinker in has a few dozen routers and maybe 3 times as many regular users. And is geared more towards an anonymity/privacy angle.
Except that we didn't screw things up right away, and that if you look closely, when the billionaire businessmen did start corrupting things they were all financed by the bank of london. Strange that. Let me go out on a limb here, and speculate that even though they do tend to screw things up a bit, they're not responsible for the worst of things, but pawns themselves. Well, rooks maybe, but they're sure as hell not in charge of this game of chess.
Nothing of consequence is ever allowed to be decided by a school board.
And it's moot anyway, seeing that the parents themselves have been trained to be livestock all their lives, of course they won't mind it if the same is done to their children. Strangely, when this is abused somehow to rape/kill/have-an-affair-with a 16 yr old girl, it will be downplayed, even though incidents similar to what I described are often used to justify the telescreens.
More like:
Like the snobby blue-blooded doctor who is actually a very talented surgeon, he still doesn't want to take emergency measures to save the life of this 1 bum he finds stabbed in the middle of the alley. It would get his hands dirty. Who would pay his $75,000 fee? What if other bums think they deserve some care for free?
Better to just stay out of the alley, and make snobbish jokes about it at cocktail parties.
Actually, it seems that you seem to credit Wikipedia with little value, if it's not 99.999% percent perfect from day one. Wikipedia will certainly have this "quibble" incorporated someday, maybe it would have had it tomorrow even if he hadn't put the spotlight on it, or maybe it would have been ten years.
And it always strikes me, that the people that bitch the loudest, are those that like to point out mistakes, and not fix them.
Joey also had a Fox show named "Joey". Was a spinoff from Married with Children. It was pretty bad, as I remember.
Troll, or devil's advocate? Show thyself.
Barring controversial subjects, most people never remove any text at all. When they do, it's usually reverted back, near as I can tell.
Assuming he had edited it, I expect that the worst that might have happened, is someone moving his paragraph to another part of the article, or maybe rewording it. Though, the man does seem to have a way with words, anyone that would do that to his is probably a fool.
I think anyone that removed his edits entirely would be considered a vandal, and it would be reverted quite quickly.
I have a two word response for that: political blogs. Many people are perfectly happy to get their Important Information a blog by somebody who can't name their sources and who has no responsibility to be accurate.
You know what I find hilarious? The elites are happy to have people repeating lies and half-truths when it serves them... but the few times that rumors are repeated such without being manipulated by someone's propaganda machine, it is quite often dead on accurate, and not the fantastical bullshit the elites would have you believe anything that they don't control to be. Could it be that human societies have been around a long time, and we would have long since gotten rid of rumor-mongering if it was somehow useless?
Most people I know want to know political truth, and not just what the popular belief is.
So a few cheerleaders are exaggerating a bit.
I've seen nothing like mediocrity, as a matter of fact I see a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs trying their best to refine a free resource without turning it into a bureaucracy. If nothing else, they aren't deciding to turn it into a stodgy 100 yr old english paper published set of volumes that the average person can't afford without mortgaging their home.
"Like" in this context means only that it meets whatever standards are considered important. It's actually a fallacy if you intentionally used the wrong definition of "like" just to score rhetoric points. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's anything other than slashdot's only 7yr old commenter, there is no reason to suppose that he meant the "prefers the object with an irrational fondness or infatuation" definition.
What's worse, several people felt that you should be modded up for this crap...
Just telling him to "edit it himself" is missing the point. I don't have the knowledge or time to write my own encyclopedia.
Fallacy. Of course you don't have time to write your own encyclopedia... that's the point. You probably have time to add an article, and if not that, to edit an existing article. A 3 sentence paragraph in the Alexander Hamilton article would do much to alleviate his concern... even accounting for him having to learn how to use wiki, that's what? 15 minutes?
Besides, it's not such a horrible article, even as it was. Growing up in a rural US town, my elementary "social studies" books were probably worse in comparison. To someone not in europe or north america, this may be the only encyclopedia they ever see. If that is the case, quibbling over a disputed birthdate seems silly.
Miscellaneous anti-filter crap.