The problem is "completed" articles
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I used to edit wikipedia a lot. The main reason I left was that many articles I'd helped to write got to the point where every edit was making the article worse, so either someone had to keep an eye on it and remove changes or the articles would slowly rot under bad edits. I'm not specifically thinking of trolls here, just bad editing.
For example, the C++ article was better than it is now a year ago. Looking at the history list, almost every edit is undone by someone else. Can the article be improved? Possibly, but the way to do that is not to allow anyone to edit it, then expect someone to put the time into undoing 95% of the edits... that's soul-destroying.
Then they can't surround the video with ads, or do cool things like show "You would also like" after the video.
Also, having done some work on this kind of thing, you get your videos working on the most computers without having to make users do anything if you use flash. You might not like it, but it gets higher coverage than something like an mpeg.
"'[Fusion io's CTO David Flynn] set the benchmark for the worst case scenario.."
By which he means, set up a completely unrealistic benchmark which shows his flash drive in the best possible light, and a traditional drive in the worst possible light.
I still want one of these, but that benchmark is nothing to be proud of.
Wait, you spent upwards of $500 to.. play games you could play on consoles you already own? WTF? Why?
I've never really understood backwards compatability that much anyway.. it's not that much hassle to keep around multiple consoles and have some kind of automatic video out switching device.
I think the main problem the reviewer is having is that he wants thinks to be like linux used to be. The reason I like Ubuntu is that it tries to escape from that. For example:
- By default, the user never has to select any partitioning options, or even know what it is. Well, most people don't know what partitioning is.
- Want to choose which software to install. Once again, new linux users won't know the names of all the programs they might want. Ubuntu installs what I consider a reasonable selection. Talk of knowing exactly what is installed sounds more like server talk, for which you probably want Ubuntu server, which does install a much smaller selection of packages by default
- Doesn't send hundreds of confusing messages past at high speed on boot-up (me paraphrasing) Well good, particularly because most start-ups have at least one thing which looks to the untrained eye like a failure
Other problems, including fonts, are possibly more valid. I'd be interested to know what an Ubuntu expert's opinion is on them.
You might donate plenty of money, but would you program?
I don't write games professionally, but I know a lot of people who do. I can tell you C++ is all over the place, as is boost. In particular, boost provides an implementation of TR1 which you can use on any compiler. Also off the top of my head, Eve (which is almost a 3D MMORPG) uses Python and seems successful for it, so I'm suprised you are so against it.
Also, using plain autotools? I assume you'd want this game to run on windows, seeing as that is the biggest market. Well then plain autotools isn't going to get you anywhere.
I have no idea why you want gtk+ but no wx, but I can't believe your favourite widget set makes that much difference. I do know wx has better windows support.
I play plenty of games where I'm positive I have no way of knowing if I'm going to jump 2 seconds before, unless I can somehow tell where enemies are going to move in advance.. which would be very interesting. I'd be interested to know how long in advance they can detect button presses on more 'twitch' games.
The network performance drops mean you can't get multiple MB/s going through your LAN connection. No game does anywhere near that amount of traffic, so they aren't effected.
It's still stupid and unacceptable, but the only effect it will have on game will be downloading patches.
That is a part of this I'm not 100% sure about, I know you can just pop onto the bittorrent site of your choice and get everything off the BBC. However, in the eyes of people who might pay for BBC content, there is I'm sure a difference between "This stuff is pirated" and "The BBC actually gives this stuff away to people, for free"
The DRM isn't to boost export sales, it's to stop the existing sales to foreign networks collapsing to nothing when people can get the programs off the internet.
It's generally known that good foreign sales are paying a substantial part of the budget for the new Doctor Who series. If you wandered around and asked if we should give Doctor Who to the rest of the world for free, I bet you wouldn't find many people who said yes.
So out of interest, where should the BBC recover the money it currently gets from selling series to foreign TV stations? Because they aren't going to pay anywhere near as much when the BBC gives the files out for free over the internet.
Actually, there is no reason they couldn't use Ogg/Theora/Dirac as a WMP plugin. The DRM is a wrapped around the file and independent from the codec used.
If that is the case, why should taxpayers have to pay for DRM-infested media that was sponsored by their tax money?
The problem is why should UK taxpayers pay for people in other countries to have free media that they didn't pay for?
I live in the UK. Quite a lot of my relatives and friends know about iPlayer. None of them know of this "uproar". DefectiveByDesign's website looks cheap and tacky, and they seem to be a mostly US group. The BBC has said multiple times that they intend to support other OSes in time. The main reason they aren't is a lack of DRM on those other platforms.
Non-UK groups, like the FSF, saying "Give us free unprotected content" is pointless. Many people in the UK want the DRM, so the BBC can make money selling their programs abroad.
No, the problem with linux is that each distro tends to put files in different places. For applications I personally write, I offer support for ubuntu. If files or programs turn out to be in a different place to where they are on ubuntu, people are on their own.
Apple already have their own KHTML fork, it's called Webkit. The two pieces of code have separated quite a way now, although there appear to have been attempts recently from both sides to pull them a little closer together again. Apple is more than capable of keeping webkit going on their own.
My only problem with the film was the only bit I have personal knowledge of (the English health service), wasn't very accurate.
That often seems to be a problem with Moore's films, whenever he talks about something I'm an expert in, he turns out to be either slightly or very wrong.
Because the way the GPL v3 is forming at the moment, I and a few other writers don't agree with it. There is a slim possibility some day someone might want to 'tivo' some of our code, and we want to allow that.
I can tell you two people who would be very annoyed if their GPL v2 code got used in a GPL v3 project. One is me, not that important, the other is Linus Torvalds, much more important.
I'm sticking with GPL v2 only on my projects, although I've been careful to keep in contact with people who have submitted code, so we can change to GPL v3 if we decide we like the final version.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to edit wikipedia a lot. The main reason I left was that many articles I'd helped to write got to the point where every edit was making the article worse, so either someone had to keep an eye on it and remove changes or the articles would slowly rot under bad edits. I'm not specifically thinking of trolls here, just bad editing.
For example, the C++ article was better than it is now a year ago. Looking at the history list, almost every edit is undone by someone else. Can the article be improved? Possibly, but the way to do that is not to allow anyone to edit it, then expect someone to put the time into undoing 95% of the edits... that's soul-destroying.
Then they can't surround the video with ads, or do cool things like show "You would also like" after the video.
Also, having done some work on this kind of thing, you get your videos working on the most computers without having to make users do anything if you use flash. You might not like it, but it gets higher coverage than something like an mpeg.
By which he means, set up a completely unrealistic benchmark which shows his flash drive in the best possible light, and a traditional drive in the worst possible light.
I still want one of these, but that benchmark is nothing to be proud of.
Wait, you spent upwards of $500 to.. play games you could play on consoles you already own? WTF? Why?
I've never really understood backwards compatability that much anyway.. it's not that much hassle to keep around multiple consoles and have some kind of automatic video out switching device.
I think the main problem the reviewer is having is that he wants thinks to be like linux used to be. The reason I like Ubuntu is that it tries to escape from that. For example:
- By default, the user never has to select any partitioning options, or even know what it is.
Well, most people don't know what partitioning is.
- Want to choose which software to install.
Once again, new linux users won't know the names of all the programs they might want. Ubuntu installs what I consider a reasonable selection. Talk of knowing exactly what is installed sounds more like server talk, for which you probably want Ubuntu server, which does install a much smaller selection of packages by default
- Doesn't send hundreds of confusing messages past at high speed on boot-up (me paraphrasing)
Well good, particularly because most start-ups have at least one thing which looks to the untrained eye like a failure
Other problems, including fonts, are possibly more valid. I'd be interested to know what an Ubuntu expert's opinion is on them.
You might donate plenty of money, but would you program?
I don't write games professionally, but I know a lot of people who do. I can tell you C++ is all over the place, as is boost. In particular, boost provides an implementation of TR1 which you can use on any compiler. Also off the top of my head, Eve (which is almost a 3D MMORPG) uses Python and seems successful for it, so I'm suprised you are so against it.
Also, using plain autotools? I assume you'd want this game to run on windows, seeing as that is the biggest market. Well then plain autotools isn't going to get you anywhere.
I have no idea why you want gtk+ but no wx, but I can't believe your favourite widget set makes that much difference. I do know wx has better windows support.
I play plenty of games where I'm positive I have no way of knowing if I'm going to jump 2 seconds before, unless I can somehow tell where enemies are going to move in advance.. which would be very interesting. I'd be interested to know how long in advance they can detect button presses on more 'twitch' games.
The network performance drops mean you can't get multiple MB/s going through your LAN connection. No game does anywhere near that amount of traffic, so they aren't effected. It's still stupid and unacceptable, but the only effect it will have on game will be downloading patches.
No, wear leveling is done at a low enough level that the whole disc is just a giant bag of bits.
That is a part of this I'm not 100% sure about, I know you can just pop onto the bittorrent site of your choice and get everything off the BBC. However, in the eyes of people who might pay for BBC content, there is I'm sure a difference between "This stuff is pirated" and "The BBC actually gives this stuff away to people, for free"
While Flash supports streaming DRM, it doesn't support "download then timeout"-style DRM, which is what the BBC iPlayer uses.
The DRM isn't to boost export sales, it's to stop the existing sales to foreign networks collapsing to nothing when people can get the programs off the internet.
It's generally known that good foreign sales are paying a substantial part of the budget for the new Doctor Who series. If you wandered around and asked if we should give Doctor Who to the rest of the world for free, I bet you wouldn't find many people who said yes.
No, it doesn't, as the BBC currently makes money selling content to foreign stations, which would dry up if the BBC gave the content away for free.
So out of interest, where should the BBC recover the money it currently gets from selling series to foreign TV stations? Because they aren't going to pay anywhere near as much when the BBC gives the files out for free over the internet.
You can get it. You can watch TV.
If that is the case, why should taxpayers have to pay for DRM-infested media that was sponsored by their tax money?
The problem is why should UK taxpayers pay for people in other countries to have free media that they didn't pay for?I live in the UK. Quite a lot of my relatives and friends know about iPlayer. None of them know of this "uproar". DefectiveByDesign's website looks cheap and tacky, and they seem to be a mostly US group. The BBC has said multiple times that they intend to support other OSes in time. The main reason they aren't is a lack of DRM on those other platforms.
Non-UK groups, like the FSF, saying "Give us free unprotected content" is pointless. Many people in the UK want the DRM, so the BBC can make money selling their programs abroad.
When people stop paying money to see the films.
No, the problem with linux is that each distro tends to put files in different places. For applications I personally write, I offer support for ubuntu. If files or programs turn out to be in a different place to where they are on ubuntu, people are on their own.
Apple already have their own KHTML fork, it's called Webkit. The two pieces of code have separated quite a way now, although there appear to have been attempts recently from both sides to pull them a little closer together again. Apple is more than capable of keeping webkit going on their own.
My only problem with the film was the only bit I have personal knowledge of (the English health service), wasn't very accurate.
That often seems to be a problem with Moore's films, whenever he talks about something I'm an expert in, he turns out to be either slightly or very wrong.
Because the way the GPL v3 is forming at the moment, I and a few other writers don't agree with it. There is a slim possibility some day someone might want to 'tivo' some of our code, and we want to allow that.
I can tell you two people who would be very annoyed if their GPL v2 code got used in a GPL v3 project. One is me, not that important, the other is Linus Torvalds, much more important.
I'm sticking with GPL v2 only on my projects, although I've been careful to keep in contact with people who have submitted code, so we can change to GPL v3 if we decide we like the final version.
But they do make games for nintendo consoles. Perhaps the simpler answer is:
A) Square-enix sell most of their games in Japan
B) In Japan, all Microsoft consoles flop horribly.
No secret plot, just business sense.