While I still think it's a rare case and wikipedia's accuracy is in line if not better than printed books, your example does convince me that vandalized pages exist and people need to use caution, especially with more obscure subjects that may not be getting as many eyeballs.
I previously challenged anyone to link to a wikipedia article which is provably wrong in a key fact presented and hasn't been corrected for more than a week. The best people came up with are spelling errors and questionable references. So as far as I am concerned, peer review system makes Wikipedia more reliable than an average printed manual or guidebook where any mistakes couldn't have been corrected since I bought it.
Do you have any evidence that these laws didn't work as intended? Some people will create problems no matter what, but public policy shouldn't be based on anecdotes.
I just looked up the article. Not that I exactly plan on doing things this way, but in a pinch the information could prove useful in a couple of months.
Come on teenagers are having sex, drinking and smoking tobaco/pot dispite any regulations to the contrary. Set age boundary more realistically and you may see some respect for this and other laws.
Umm. Classy, reliable hardware, great user interface and security in exchange for somewhat higher prices. Or cheap devices, crafty software and "interoperability" like Microsoft's PlayForSure? I am sure Amazon would love to be compared to Apple and have Sony/B&N be compared to Dell and Microsoft. I don't think Kindle is up to the sniff yet though. Decent device, still not enough screen contrast and no backlight for occasional night reading, too easy to do unintended things with the buttons.
"Square off, prove up and go down in flames" is a very male metaphor (and mixed). Why do you think women should act like men? Most of us don't have the testosterone for such an aggressive approach to life. Women aren't on the self-pity train any more than men. We would just like things to be fairer becuae we tend to like thing to be fair. That's not inferior to your competitive approach or superior either.
You definitely shouldn't act counter to your nature. However some human endeavors - war, sports, CEOs making 1000 times more money than your coworkers without doing 1000 times the work - are more suited to those with aggressive approach to life. Just like some others - raising/educating children, judges and juries in court - are more suited to those who value fairness and compassion. As a regular heterosexual male, I feel that I belong to the later group and resent having to live my home country to avoid military service. But on the other hand I don't complain about earning mediocre salary when it it is my choice to limit work hours in order to spend time with my children.
Nope, all energy in the universe is eventually converted to heat. In case of your CPU, computations are just an intermediate step of that conversion. By making the silicon more efficient you are just reducing the rate at which electricity is converted to heat inside your particular computer.
How so? Kindle contains some features that publishers most probably do not want - such as ability to install a book on unlimited number of registered devices, exportable clippings for fair use and ability of independent entities rather than just big corps to publish their material. It can be seen as striking a balance between interests of publishers and readers rather than being overly biased.
If they had their way, we would be paying them large amounts of money for nothing whatsoever. It's up to us to show dissatisfaction by either political action demanding open access or refusing to buy smartphones until a completely open one comes to market.
People keep saying that, but can you point even a single article on wikipedia which is outrageously incorrect and has been this way for more than a month that it might take to notice vandalism.
To which you replied:
Andrew Sullivan used as a reference on Sarah Palin. How can he be considered a credible objective source for her wikipedia article after his Trig meltdown?
So instead of showing that Sarah Palin entry on wikipedia is factually incorrect, you are attacking one of the sources without proving the falsehood.
It was kept intentionally wrong for a long period of time (specifically with respect to the capitalization of 'people') It may seem silly, but it was an important point of debate for anyone interested in the topic.
Are you saying that this was/is the most significant inaccuracy in this rather detailed article on a contentious topic? This gives me even more confidence in using wikipedia for most of my information needs.
A 1990 grand jury report concluded the allegations amounted to a "carefully crafted hoax," although the alleged perpetrators of said hoax were never officially identified. Allegations of a coverup have circulated since, including several books and a documentary film.
Wikipedia doesn't claim that the scandal was a hoax, only that grand jury reached this conclusion in it's report. Do you have a reference to the actual report which contradicts the quotation? Wikipedia entry itself references New York Times.
This is known as Ad hominem fallacy. Can you show how the entry on Sarah Palin was factually wrong in the key facts presented, rather than just casting suspicion on the sources?
It's the problem paying for each news source separately. What people definitely not want to do is get all their news from one site, like they did in the days of newspapers. And $5/month subscriptions to 20 different sites are not going to be cost effective. Come up with a system where one pays a flat fee, has access to practically everything, worldwide, and the money is distributed in proportion to time spent on each site and people will not be averse to paying. In fact most ISPs would probably bundle the access fee to simplify life for an average user who just wants the site to work with no extra steps.
People keep saying that, but can you point even a single article on wikipedia which is outrageously incorrect and has been this way for more than a month that it might take to notice vandalism. Fox news on the other hand...
How is it going to solve the problem when the data is passed around on CD-ROMs and flash drives or downloaded from a web site? By designing a proper file format protection doesn't depend on the medium on which the file is stored. Potentially this can be implemented in a single, well-tested library that would also support metadata on exact file type and creator's version beyond what can be inferred from extension or the data itself. Ideally, zip/zlib could be enhanced to provide user-specified amount of redundancy. This way packaging, compression, encryption and error correction of archived data can be all handled with a familiar tool.
One interesting example of digital media that does no worse than analog when corrupted is mp3. Even files accidentally transferred in ASCII mode are somewhat playable.
How exactly are the permissions enforced? Did Google implement some kind of filesystem with application-specific ACLs? Was there a serious effort to close the backdoors, such as updating another apps shared libraries or reading GPS coordinates from system logs? Are applications prevented from taking over the whole screen and mimicking another app's interface to trick users into entering their passwords?
Unless a comprehensive solution is implemented, this is just a security theater in that only legit apps will ask for permissions.
It depends on manual app approval process and ability to ban/sue developers who abuse the system. There is probably also a kill switch to delete the app from existing devices that Apple hasn't yet had to activate for catastrophic malware. Runtime-enforced security has been tried with J2ME and nobody liked the app functionality. In fact people are not willing to live with Java's limitations on desktop either. Perhaps someday such a system will become viable with much more powerful mobile hardware and better thought out security system that allows more functional legitimate apps (for example, user will be able to give an app access to some or all e-mail as an intuitive option).
Your employer can fire you for NO REASON. Conversely, you can quit your job for NO REASON.
That's not how it works, see your own words below.
Your analogy FAILS because "to make me have sex with him/her as a condition of my employment." is illegal, and "to fire me based on a sex video s/he found on Internet" is NOT illegal.
So are you against rectifying this discrepancy? The basic idea is that my boss shouldn't be controlling my sexuality by specifying persons, number of people or genders that I must have/not have sex with. Why should he get a free pass because it's "on Internet"?
Slashdot Mirror
While I still think it's a rare case and wikipedia's accuracy is in line if not better than printed books, your example does convince me that vandalized pages exist and people need to use caution, especially with more obscure subjects that may not be getting as many eyeballs.
I previously challenged anyone to link to a wikipedia article which is provably wrong in a key fact presented and hasn't been corrected for more than a week. The best people came up with are spelling errors and questionable references. So as far as I am concerned, peer review system makes Wikipedia more reliable than an average printed manual or guidebook where any mistakes couldn't have been corrected since I bought it.
Do you have any evidence that these laws didn't work as intended? Some people will create problems no matter what, but public policy shouldn't be based on anecdotes.
I just looked up the article. Not that I exactly plan on doing things this way, but in a pinch the information could prove useful in a couple of months.
Come on teenagers are having sex, drinking and smoking tobaco/pot dispite any regulations to the contrary. Set age boundary more realistically and you may see some respect for this and other laws.
And what are you saying to convince us to do the same? That Amazon is overzealous about security? I think a lot of people will take this as a plus.
Umm. Classy, reliable hardware, great user interface and security in exchange for somewhat higher prices. Or cheap devices, crafty software and "interoperability" like Microsoft's PlayForSure? I am sure Amazon would love to be compared to Apple and have Sony/B&N be compared to Dell and Microsoft. I don't think Kindle is up to the sniff yet though. Decent device, still not enough screen contrast and no backlight for occasional night reading, too easy to do unintended things with the buttons.
"Square off, prove up and go down in flames" is a very male metaphor (and mixed). Why do you think women should act like men? Most of us don't have the testosterone for such an aggressive approach to life. Women aren't on the self-pity train any more than men. We would just like things to be fairer becuae we tend to like thing to be fair. That's not inferior to your competitive approach or superior either.
You definitely shouldn't act counter to your nature. However some human endeavors - war, sports, CEOs making 1000 times more money than your coworkers without doing 1000 times the work - are more suited to those with aggressive approach to life. Just like some others - raising/educating children, judges and juries in court - are more suited to those who value fairness and compassion. As a regular heterosexual male, I feel that I belong to the later group and resent having to live my home country to avoid military service. But on the other hand I don't complain about earning mediocre salary when it it is my choice to limit work hours in order to spend time with my children.
Nope, all energy in the universe is eventually converted to heat. In case of your CPU, computations are just an intermediate step of that conversion. By making the silicon more efficient you are just reducing the rate at which electricity is converted to heat inside your particular computer.
How so? Kindle contains some features that publishers most probably do not want - such as ability to install a book on unlimited number of registered devices, exportable clippings for fair use and ability of independent entities rather than just big corps to publish their material. It can be seen as striking a balance between interests of publishers and readers rather than being overly biased.
If they had their way, we would be paying them large amounts of money for nothing whatsoever. It's up to us to show dissatisfaction by either political action demanding open access or refusing to buy smartphones until a completely open one comes to market.
How am I "advertising a product or service at an unprofitably low price, then reveals to potential customers that the advertised good is not available but that a substitute is"? My post was:
People keep saying that, but can you point even a single article on wikipedia which is outrageously incorrect and has been this way for more than a month that it might take to notice vandalism.
To which you replied:
Andrew Sullivan used as a reference on Sarah Palin. How can he be considered a credible objective source for her wikipedia article after his Trig meltdown?
So instead of showing that Sarah Palin entry on wikipedia is factually incorrect, you are attacking one of the sources without proving the falsehood.
It was kept intentionally wrong for a long period of time (specifically with respect to the capitalization of 'people') It may seem silly, but it was an important point of debate for anyone interested in the topic.
Are you saying that this was/is the most significant inaccuracy in this rather detailed article on a contentious topic? This gives me even more confidence in using wikipedia for most of my information needs.
A 1990 grand jury report concluded the allegations amounted to a "carefully crafted hoax," although the alleged perpetrators of said hoax were never officially identified. Allegations of a coverup have circulated since, including several books and a documentary film.
Wikipedia doesn't claim that the scandal was a hoax, only that grand jury reached this conclusion in it's report. Do you have a reference to the actual report which contradicts the quotation? Wikipedia entry itself references New York Times.
This is known as Ad hominem fallacy. Can you show how the entry on Sarah Palin was factually wrong in the key facts presented, rather than just casting suspicion on the sources?
The Franklin Scandal, according to wikipedia was a "hoax"
[citation needed]
So, can you link to a politically focused article which is factually wrong in the key facts presented?
I demand digital organs in a sleek package that looks good in starbucks, complete with DRM and remote kill capability to protect the consumers!
It's the problem paying for each news source separately. What people definitely not want to do is get all their news from one site, like they did in the days of newspapers. And $5/month subscriptions to 20 different sites are not going to be cost effective. Come up with a system where one pays a flat fee, has access to practically everything, worldwide, and the money is distributed in proportion to time spent on each site and people will not be averse to paying. In fact most ISPs would probably bundle the access fee to simplify life for an average user who just wants the site to work with no extra steps.
People keep saying that, but can you point even a single article on wikipedia which is outrageously incorrect and has been this way for more than a month that it might take to notice vandalism. Fox news on the other hand...
How is it going to solve the problem when the data is passed around on CD-ROMs and flash drives or downloaded from a web site? By designing a proper file format protection doesn't depend on the medium on which the file is stored. Potentially this can be implemented in a single, well-tested library that would also support metadata on exact file type and creator's version beyond what can be inferred from extension or the data itself. Ideally, zip/zlib could be enhanced to provide user-specified amount of redundancy. This way packaging, compression, encryption and error correction of archived data can be all handled with a familiar tool.
One interesting example of digital media that does no worse than analog when corrupted is mp3. Even files accidentally transferred in ASCII mode are somewhat playable.
Are you really suggesting that people should have to take classes to safely download and play games on their cell phone?
How exactly are the permissions enforced? Did Google implement some kind of filesystem with application-specific ACLs? Was there a serious effort to close the backdoors, such as updating another apps shared libraries or reading GPS coordinates from system logs? Are applications prevented from taking over the whole screen and mimicking another app's interface to trick users into entering their passwords?
Unless a comprehensive solution is implemented, this is just a security theater in that only legit apps will ask for permissions.
It depends on manual app approval process and ability to ban/sue developers who abuse the system. There is probably also a kill switch to delete the app from existing devices that Apple hasn't yet had to activate for catastrophic malware. Runtime-enforced security has been tried with J2ME and nobody liked the app functionality. In fact people are not willing to live with Java's limitations on desktop either. Perhaps someday such a system will become viable with much more powerful mobile hardware and better thought out security system that allows more functional legitimate apps (for example, user will be able to give an app access to some or all e-mail as an intuitive option).
Your employer can fire you for NO REASON. Conversely, you can quit your job for NO REASON.
That's not how it works, see your own words below.
Your analogy FAILS because "to make me have sex with him/her as a condition of my employment." is illegal, and "to fire me based on a sex video s/he found on Internet" is NOT illegal.
So are you against rectifying this discrepancy? The basic idea is that my boss shouldn't be controlling my sexuality by specifying persons, number of people or genders that I must have/not have sex with. Why should he get a free pass because it's "on Internet"?