The question should not be whether wikipedia is better with or without ads. Obviously no one favors hosting ads for free on wikipedia. The question is whether the cost of having ads is more than the benefits ad money can buy.
Agreed.
Can anyone here really say they would take a million dollars from other needy open source/content projects or other worthwhile charity (cancer research etc..) just so people didn't have to see (opt out?) ads on wikipedia?
No, but I don't think those are the only two choices. I think what the Wikimedia foundation needs to do is focus on facilitating the creation of the content, and let others do the work of distributing it. Then they won't have to spend millions in the first place.
If they really want they could form a for-profit subsidiary which distributes the content, presumably with ads, but if they don't someone else will.
I'm confused. I know Wikipedia, and its popularity, are growing rapidly, but I'd love to know how they got through a year with $192,000 in expenses, and now it's "a million dollars will buy us three months!".
They hired a CEO, or should I say, they let Jimbo hire one. A move which, by the way, prompted the resignation of one of the board members.
As someone who uses AdSense, let me tell you that the ads do influence the content.
As someone who ran a Wikipedia mirror with Google Adsense ads, I have to concur. And it's even more explicit than you suggest. Google gave me an ultimatum - remove the ads from pages which violate Google's "content guidelines", or be banned from the Adsense program. I chose to remove Google ads from all pages.
I don't think Wikimedia should advertise on wikipedia.org. Maybe they could use wikipedia.com for an ad-supported site, which could be run as a wholly owned for-profit subsidiary similar to the Mozilla Corporation. But either way, they shouldn't use Google Adsense unless they can negotiate a contract where they aren't forced to censor content.
For those cases that there are no 100 Mib's out there, one can always simply gather together a couple of 10 Mib's and go at them simultaneously. the ones that haven't upgraded to 100 normally have 10.
Sure, but what kind of files are you going to do that with, without going over your daily allotment?
I'd like to have that sort of connection at home. But I'm not sure it'd be much more useful than what I have now.
more like 2048 seconds. (should have made that 25 GiB perhaps, to clarify. thought it was clear enough however.)
A lot more reasonable, I guess...
Anyways, I've been on this line now for 2½ years, and haven't made that cap yet. I download what I want - and do it quickly enough for my needs.
And plenty of people here in the US do the same on their much "slower" connections. Being able to burst at 100 mbit is nice for those few times you can actually reach such usage, but for a home connection it really is overkill. $15/month is really good though. I can't get anything but dialup here in Tampa at that price (unless it's bundled with something else).
There is a limit on the bandwidth usage, though, so that my building don't overextend the fiber that we have. It's at 25 gb/day or something like that, though.
So you can have a 100Mbit connection for all of 250 seconds (about 4 minutes) a day. I knew there was a catch.
I've heard plenty of people sing the praises of Verizon's $20.00/mo. 768k/128k DSL....why? Because it is cheap, and faster than dial-up. In their minds, there is no reason to spend almost 3x as much for faster service.
Sure, there are reasons. But for most people, myself included, 768k/128k is fine. Faster would be nice for streaming video, I guess, but for the most part I don't see the advantage (I run my server on a fast connection, but that's not in the home).
Our government needs to realize that high-speed data service now is as important as electricity or running water. For those that doubt that statement, try to apply for a job without using the internet.
Requiring Internet access is not the same as requiring high-speed Internet access. You don't need a fast connection to apply for a job, even if you do need Internet access for it. High-speed data service is not as important as electricity or running water. Not by a long shot.
Is the percentage of people on broadband a even valid benchmark of technological ability of a nation?
It's probably a good rough measure of the percentage of people with a certain level of technological ability. At 45% that's not that bad...
Actually thinking of the percentage I came up with one possible explanation - lack of extended families. Broadband penetration is measured on a household by household basis, right? So what percentage of households in the US have people aged say 15-35 in them, compared to the rest of the world? I don't know the answers, but it is a possible explanation. It seems to me the older people get, the less likely they are to be interested in broadband internet access.
If population density is the only problem, how come high-speed internet access costs so much more in New York City than Tokyo? They have similar density and size, yet Tokyo has much faster access available at a lower price.
How much faster, and how much of a lower price? A quick google search suggests access in Japan is slower and more expensive.
"NTT is currently the largest provider of DSL service in Japan, with 62 percent of all DSL users, and is offering competitive rates. NTT DSL service provides 1.5 mbps for between 3,800 to 4,050 yen per month." "3 800 Japanese yen = 31.3893937 U.S. dollars"
It's difficult to compare the two, though. Should we factor in cost of living, real estate costs, salaries? How about the amount of customer support the typical New Yorker requires compared to the typical resident of Tokyo?
The counter argument to this line of reasoning is "why can't a city like New York City have fast and cheap broadband because of its high population density?"
And the counter to that counter-argument is that...it does. I knew of buildings in NYC that had "free" (came with the apartment) broadband access back in 1996.
You think France has a bigger market for cheap highspeed network access than the US does?
No, but I think France has a population density more than three times as dense as the United States. Supply-side issues are what affect prices in the long run, not demand.
You don't say so but being biased against SCO does not invalidate groklaw. Virtually everything written on groklaw is exhaustively sourced. If you prefer to not read the commentary because of it's obvious bias, the primary documents really support what Pamela is saying.
Sure, I agree with this entirely. And even if the website is being run by IBM, that's still not a reason to discount those parts which are well sourced.
Anyone who doesn't have an opinion about SCO simply doesn't know enough about this litigation.
I know very little about this litigation, and I think that's plenty. SCO seems to be acting like a troll, and I find the best way to deal with such behavior is to just ignore it. I'll let IBM, Novell, and the others worry about this for now. If I think there's any serious threat to anything at all, I'll learn more about it...
See her wikipedia page. It lists her as author of several articles and co-author of a book.
Publius is listed as the author of the Federalist Papers, but that doesn't mean that Publius existed during the time they were written.
At some point she had to meet with editors or sign a contract, information about all of which is probably subject to subpoena.
Not necessarily. It's hard for me to see how PJ is subject to a subpoena, let alone someone who wrote a book listing her as a co-author. And even after you got that subpoena, what if it turns out their communication with "her" was through a third party intermediary who never identified emself? What if their communication was done anonymously through the Internet? It's pretty easy to remain pseudonymous unless you're blowing up mailboxes or something.
Is Pamela Jones a person, and not just a pseudonym for one or a group of people? I don't see anything on Wikipedia which leads me to believe one way or the other. Does it matter to me? Not really. Whether Jones is a shill for IBM or acting on "her" own is really irrelevant - either way it's obvious the person or people are biased against SCO.
If you've got a botnet with a million computers, access to a directory service with names and addresses, and can already determine ethnicity by last name, is it really that big of a deal that you also have people's pictures?
You've got a point with the fake ID thing, I guess, but if the photos are of low enough resolution and/or are watermarked that might make that less effective.
Anyone can now send a text message or visit the country's population information center's website, to check if the name and the ID number of a person's identity card match.
There aren't any pictures, but the IRS already has a TIN matching program which lets "authorized payers" "Match the payee W-9 name [the person's name] and TIN [the person's social security number] with IRS records".
TIN Matching is part of a suite of internet based pre-filing e-services that allow "authorized payors" the opportunity to match 1099 payee information against IRS records prior to filing information returns. An authorized payor is one who has filed information returns with the IRS in at least one of the two past tax years. Interactive TIN Matching will accept up to 25 payee TIN/Name combinations on-screen while Bulk TIN Matching will allow up to 100,000 payee TIN/Name combinations to be matched via a text file submission.
Lets get rid of black markets, gray markets, and illegal immigration.
OK. Eliminate transfer taxes (income tax and sales tax) and let people across the border freely. Legalize drugs. Legalize gambling. You've just gotten rid of black markets, gray markets and illegal immigration.
What, you think giving people ID cards is going to do it?
There are potentials for abuse to be sure, especially if third parties are allowed access (a practice I would like to see barred by law). But the gains to out society probably outweigh any theoretical down side. We're not talking papers you have to carry around or be arrested. We talking about a card you use when applying for jobs or bank accounts.
I fail to see how such a card solves anything. It's especially useless as long as the laws that already exist aren't being enforced.
While it'd be better than a system where the government knows everything about everyone but the population doesn't, I still wouldn't want to live in a world without any secrets. Mob rule is not that much better than dictatorship, as there is far too much intolerance in the world. Think Salem Witch Trials, attitudes towards homosexuality, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, etc.
I'm also not a big fan of my actions being recorded. The problem with that is that it's too easy for someone who opposes you to take things out of context. A world in which everyone knows everything is a world which is controlled by the popular media. I also like the idea that I live in a world where I can make mistakes without everyone knowing about them.
Moving back to this program, I like the idea of being able to check that a name and an ID number match. Both of these items represent essentially the same thing. Adding in a picture I'm not so sure about.
How exactly would a system where the public can check if a person's name and ID number match, be a damper on democracy?
It wouldn't. On the contrary, allowing the public access to a system which the government already has serves to promote democracy. What is a damper on democracy is the system run by the US states (at least the ones I know) where the police have the power to type in a name and ID number and get a picture of you, but the public doesn't.
Now promoting democracy is strange coming from China, so there is probably more to this story than what meets the eye. But from the description on Slashdot I don't see any discrepancy between this system and democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
No, but I don't think those are the only two choices. I think what the Wikimedia foundation needs to do is focus on facilitating the creation of the content, and let others do the work of distributing it. Then they won't have to spend millions in the first place.
If they really want they could form a for-profit subsidiary which distributes the content, presumably with ads, but if they don't someone else will.
They hired a CEO, or should I say, they let Jimbo hire one. A move which, by the way, prompted the resignation of one of the board members.
As someone who ran a Wikipedia mirror with Google Adsense ads, I have to concur. And it's even more explicit than you suggest. Google gave me an ultimatum - remove the ads from pages which violate Google's "content guidelines", or be banned from the Adsense program. I chose to remove Google ads from all pages.
I don't think Wikimedia should advertise on wikipedia.org. Maybe they could use wikipedia.com for an ad-supported site, which could be run as a wholly owned for-profit subsidiary similar to the Mozilla Corporation. But either way, they shouldn't use Google Adsense unless they can negotiate a contract where they aren't forced to censor content.
Sure, but what kind of files are you going to do that with, without going over your daily allotment?
I'd like to have that sort of connection at home. But I'm not sure it'd be much more useful than what I have now.
A lot more reasonable, I guess...
And plenty of people here in the US do the same on their much "slower" connections. Being able to burst at 100 mbit is nice for those few times you can actually reach such usage, but for a home connection it really is overkill. $15/month is really good though. I can't get anything but dialup here in Tampa at that price (unless it's bundled with something else).
So you can have a 100Mbit connection for all of 250 seconds (about 4 minutes) a day. I knew there was a catch.
Sure, there are reasons. But for most people, myself included, 768k/128k is fine. Faster would be nice for streaming video, I guess, but for the most part I don't see the advantage (I run my server on a fast connection, but that's not in the home).
Requiring Internet access is not the same as requiring high-speed Internet access. You don't need a fast connection to apply for a job, even if you do need Internet access for it. High-speed data service is not as important as electricity or running water. Not by a long shot.
It's probably a good rough measure of the percentage of people with a certain level of technological ability. At 45% that's not that bad...
Actually thinking of the percentage I came up with one possible explanation - lack of extended families. Broadband penetration is measured on a household by household basis, right? So what percentage of households in the US have people aged say 15-35 in them, compared to the rest of the world? I don't know the answers, but it is a possible explanation. It seems to me the older people get, the less likely they are to be interested in broadband internet access.
From what I've read, that's only the local access, and for long distance access you have to pay extra if you use very much bandwidth.
Is this correct? And if not, why not start your own ISP?
That's probably vacuously true, but so what?
No, but the AC was comparing the US to France, not NYC to France.
How much faster, and how much of a lower price? A quick google search suggests access in Japan is slower and more expensive.
"NTT is currently the largest provider of DSL service in Japan, with 62 percent of all DSL users, and is offering competitive rates. NTT DSL service provides 1.5 mbps for between 3,800 to 4,050 yen per month." "3 800 Japanese yen = 31.3893937 U.S. dollars"
It's difficult to compare the two, though. Should we factor in cost of living, real estate costs, salaries? How about the amount of customer support the typical New Yorker requires compared to the typical resident of Tokyo?
And the counter to that counter-argument is that...it does. I knew of buildings in NYC that had "free" (came with the apartment) broadband access back in 1996.
No, but I think France has a population density more than three times as dense as the United States. Supply-side issues are what affect prices in the long run, not demand.
Sure, I agree with this entirely. And even if the website is being run by IBM, that's still not a reason to discount those parts which are well sourced.
I know very little about this litigation, and I think that's plenty. SCO seems to be acting like a troll, and I find the best way to deal with such behavior is to just ignore it. I'll let IBM, Novell, and the others worry about this for now. If I think there's any serious threat to anything at all, I'll learn more about it...
And maybe the trail leads to...groklaw.net.
It could be followed, but unless you're dealing with the unibomber I doubt a court is going to let you follow it very far.
Publius is listed as the author of the Federalist Papers, but that doesn't mean that Publius existed during the time they were written.
Not necessarily. It's hard for me to see how PJ is subject to a subpoena, let alone someone who wrote a book listing her as a co-author. And even after you got that subpoena, what if it turns out their communication with "her" was through a third party intermediary who never identified emself? What if their communication was done anonymously through the Internet? It's pretty easy to remain pseudonymous unless you're blowing up mailboxes or something.
Is Pamela Jones a person, and not just a pseudonym for one or a group of people? I don't see anything on Wikipedia which leads me to believe one way or the other. Does it matter to me? Not really. Whether Jones is a shill for IBM or acting on "her" own is really irrelevant - either way it's obvious the person or people are biased against SCO.
If you've got a botnet with a million computers, access to a directory service with names and addresses, and can already determine ethnicity by last name, is it really that big of a deal that you also have people's pictures?
You've got a point with the fake ID thing, I guess, but if the photos are of low enough resolution and/or are watermarked that might make that less effective.
Better than nothing. But if they wanted to do it right they'd include a signed public key. Then you'd at least be able to use it over the internet.
Surely the picture they give out online is of lower resolution than the original. If they're smart, it's also watermarked.
Anyone have a link to the site, preferably along with a name and ID number so we can try it out?
There aren't any pictures, but the IRS already has a TIN matching program which lets "authorized payers" "Match the payee W-9 name [the person's name] and TIN [the person's social security number] with IRS records".
OK. Eliminate transfer taxes (income tax and sales tax) and let people across the border freely. Legalize drugs. Legalize gambling. You've just gotten rid of black markets, gray markets and illegal immigration.
What, you think giving people ID cards is going to do it?
I fail to see how such a card solves anything. It's especially useless as long as the laws that already exist aren't being enforced.
While it'd be better than a system where the government knows everything about everyone but the population doesn't, I still wouldn't want to live in a world without any secrets. Mob rule is not that much better than dictatorship, as there is far too much intolerance in the world. Think Salem Witch Trials, attitudes towards homosexuality, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, etc.
I'm also not a big fan of my actions being recorded. The problem with that is that it's too easy for someone who opposes you to take things out of context. A world in which everyone knows everything is a world which is controlled by the popular media. I also like the idea that I live in a world where I can make mistakes without everyone knowing about them.
Moving back to this program, I like the idea of being able to check that a name and an ID number match. Both of these items represent essentially the same thing. Adding in a picture I'm not so sure about.
It wouldn't. On the contrary, allowing the public access to a system which the government already has serves to promote democracy. What is a damper on democracy is the system run by the US states (at least the ones I know) where the police have the power to type in a name and ID number and get a picture of you, but the public doesn't.
Now promoting democracy is strange coming from China, so there is probably more to this story than what meets the eye. But from the description on Slashdot I don't see any discrepancy between this system and democracy.
No, but at least it was in the same ballpark.
We already know how to reverse the effects of global warming. Stop producing so much CO2. Now give me my $25 million.