What's even more funny is that for most people, it seems to be perfectly OK to talk about the military and killing people and so on, but mentioning sex is a taboo.
It just doesn't make sense when you think about it...
They (the betamax people) did that? Then it's no wonder they lost indeed, and not just because it happened to be the porn industry. I think it's reasonably safe to say that any attempt to control or limit possible content is doomed to fail when there are equally-good alternatives available that do not have such restrictions.
11000 porn titles a year? Goodness, who's actually watching all that? I rented a few porn movies myself when I was young(er), but to be frank, I never was impressed with any of them, and I returned most (if not all) of them without even finishing watching them.
Did I just watch the wrong ones and miss those that are actually entertaining (in whatever way)?
Why? There is a limit on which heights are possible for a given celestial body (planets etc., that is, I'm not counting in stars here), and that limit is actually higher for a smaller body (for example, a volcano the size (height) of Olympus Mons wouldn't even theoretically be possible on earth).
It wouldn't kill the project as such, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. Why would you want to *elect* experts? The fact that someone is popular doesn't mean he's an expert in a certain field. Wikipedia already is a meritocracy of sorts where how much you're respected depends on what you do, not what you claim, and I think that's the right idea.
Of course, a "stable" branch from the Wikipedia trunk that's being double-checked for factual accuracy and the like by experts is still a good idea for a CD-ROM version or so, for example, but it shouldn't be mixed with the trunk. The fact that anyone can edit a page and have the changes go live immediately is Wikipedia's strength, after all, and the failure of Nupedia should tell us all something.:)
So, in other words, you made an edit that someone else didn't agree with, and you didn't make any attempt to either put your material in again, resolve the issue on the article's associated talk page etc., and you didn't ever do anything else on Wikipedia either, but you still conclude that because something YOU did was reverted, the whole concept must invariably be doomed?
No. It's a Wiki, and even if someone edits an article, the old version is still stored in the article's history (and the edit will be checked by others to make sure it's not censoring etc.)
That being said, of course, criticism has no place on Wikinews, either. It's a news source, and like on Wikipedia, NPOV is probably the single most important principle behind it - just the facts, no opinions, whether explicit (by stating them) or implicit (by leaving out things etc.)
Yes, it does (at least if I understand how it works correctly). When you start it as a server, you can specify the URL of another, already running server, and the new server you're starting will become a part of the network that server's connected to. You can build arbitrarily-sized networks of servers that way, and a client that connects to one of the servers to get files will look for them on every server of the network the server it connects to belongs to.
You do NOT have a permanent account - you are an early adopter, which is something different entirely.:)
That being said, I share your nervousness. Of course, in the blogging world in particular, "for the profit" is the same as "for the people", since a site like Livejournal is worth nothing without a large userbase, but I don't immediately trust SA to realize that and make the right decisions (or, rather, abstain from making the wrong ones).
Well, we'll see what happens.
The most immediate problem I can see is that it's overpriced. 20 EUR for a day (27 USD) would be OK, I guess (even though it still seems rather expensive), but that's just for fours hours - every hour beyond that costs another EUR, and while that's not *that* much more, it makes the whole thing seem like quite a rip-off. If I go to a place like that, I want to be able to relax without having to keep an eye on the watch - I want to be able to pay a flat fee and actually get a ticket for the whole day.
Maybe. But if you only want to / can hire 0.5% of your candidates, then it's realistically possible to make sure that those you hire are in those 10%.:)
What would you do, though, if you get several thousands of applications for 25 jobs a week? Yes, there is no way to know for *sure* that someone who makes it through your interviews and all that actually *will* be a good employee (in whatever sense of "good"), but you've got to make a choice somehow.
So I was just hired by Google right out of college [...]
Congrats.:) Be sure to keep a blog of your experiences in working there - I'm sure many people will be interested in reading that. ^_~
Re:"do no evil" vs "nonprofit"?
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
The catch (if you want to call it that) is that Gmail is still in beta testing. As soon as it's ready for a general release, I'd assume you will have to pay a nominal fee if you want features like this.
That, or maybe they think that enough people will still use the web interface (instead of or together with pop3 access) so that they still can make money off of those ads.
But in either case, they probably did think of something. ^_~
How many of those are actually found in the wild? 100,000 is a big number, but ultimately meaningless when you want to assess the risk posed by viri etc. Throwing around big numbers like that is more the realm of marketing than that of engineering.:)
Snapstream? Been there, done that, and found that it's even worse bloatware than what our friends in Redmond put out.
Maybe it's changed by now (it's been a year or two for me), but I doubt it - if you have a company that seems to value bloat (for whatever reason), it's unlikely that future versions will contain less of it.
Slashdot Mirror
What's even more funny is that for most people, it seems to be perfectly OK to talk about the military and killing people and so on, but mentioning sex is a taboo.
It just doesn't make sense when you think about it...
Heh. ^_~ That's NOT what I meant - I stopped watching them because I was genuinely bored. No, really!
They (the betamax people) did that? Then it's no wonder they lost indeed, and not just because it happened to be the porn industry. I think it's reasonably safe to say that any attempt to control or limit possible content is doomed to fail when there are equally-good alternatives available that do not have such restrictions.
11000 porn titles a year? Goodness, who's actually watching all that? I rented a few porn movies myself when I was young(er), but to be frank, I never was impressed with any of them, and I returned most (if not all) of them without even finishing watching them.
Did I just watch the wrong ones and miss those that are actually entertaining (in whatever way)?
Why? There is a limit on which heights are possible for a given celestial body (planets etc., that is, I'm not counting in stars here), and that limit is actually higher for a smaller body (for example, a volcano the size (height) of Olympus Mons wouldn't even theoretically be possible on earth).
It wouldn't kill the project as such, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. Why would you want to *elect* experts? The fact that someone is popular doesn't mean he's an expert in a certain field. Wikipedia already is a meritocracy of sorts where how much you're respected depends on what you do, not what you claim, and I think that's the right idea. Of course, a "stable" branch from the Wikipedia trunk that's being double-checked for factual accuracy and the like by experts is still a good idea for a CD-ROM version or so, for example, but it shouldn't be mixed with the trunk. The fact that anyone can edit a page and have the changes go live immediately is Wikipedia's strength, after all, and the failure of Nupedia should tell us all something. :)
So, in other words, you made an edit that someone else didn't agree with, and you didn't make any attempt to either put your material in again, resolve the issue on the article's associated talk page etc., and you didn't ever do anything else on Wikipedia either, but you still conclude that because something YOU did was reverted, the whole concept must invariably be doomed?
:)
Congrats on the size of your ego.
No. It's a Wiki, and even if someone edits an article, the old version is still stored in the article's history (and the edit will be checked by others to make sure it's not censoring etc.) That being said, of course, criticism has no place on Wikinews, either. It's a news source, and like on Wikipedia, NPOV is probably the single most important principle behind it - just the facts, no opinions, whether explicit (by stating them) or implicit (by leaving out things etc.)
Yes, it does (at least if I understand how it works correctly). When you start it as a server, you can specify the URL of another, already running server, and the new server you're starting will become a part of the network that server's connected to. You can build arbitrarily-sized networks of servers that way, and a client that connects to one of the servers to get files will look for them on every server of the network the server it connects to belongs to.
So Napster wasn't a P2P app (or network), and eDonkey isn't, either?
You don't actually have to invest time for that. A jagged rock (or even a non-jagged one) already *is* a lethal weapon when applied properly.
Look closely, and you'll see that every line is less than 80 characters. It's not really about newlines, it's about lines on your screen.
Makes me wish they'd do that (selling permanent accounts) again. :)
Ah, OK. Out of curiosity, how'd you get it? ^^
You mean, support will increase to infinity and prices will drop to zero? :) That actually would be nice.
You do NOT have a permanent account - you are an early adopter, which is something different entirely. :)
That being said, I share your nervousness. Of course, in the blogging world in particular, "for the profit" is the same as "for the people", since a site like Livejournal is worth nothing without a large userbase, but I don't immediately trust SA to realize that and make the right decisions (or, rather, abstain from making the wrong ones).
Well, we'll see what happens.
The most immediate problem I can see is that it's overpriced. 20 EUR for a day (27 USD) would be OK, I guess (even though it still seems rather expensive), but that's just for fours hours - every hour beyond that costs another EUR, and while that's not *that* much more, it makes the whole thing seem like quite a rip-off. If I go to a place like that, I want to be able to relax without having to keep an eye on the watch - I want to be able to pay a flat fee and actually get a ticket for the whole day.
Maybe. But if you only want to / can hire 0.5% of your candidates, then it's realistically possible to make sure that those you hire are in those 10%. :)
It doesn't automatically make you right, either, though. :)
What would you do, though, if you get several thousands of applications for 25 jobs a week? Yes, there is no way to know for *sure* that someone who makes it through your interviews and all that actually *will* be a good employee (in whatever sense of "good"), but you've got to make a choice somehow.
Congrats. :) Be sure to keep a blog of your experiences in working there - I'm sure many people will be interested in reading that. ^_~
The catch (if you want to call it that) is that Gmail is still in beta testing. As soon as it's ready for a general release, I'd assume you will have to pay a nominal fee if you want features like this.
That, or maybe they think that enough people will still use the web interface (instead of or together with pop3 access) so that they still can make money off of those ads.
But in either case, they probably did think of something. ^_~
How many of those are actually found in the wild? 100,000 is a big number, but ultimately meaningless when you want to assess the risk posed by viri etc. Throwing around big numbers like that is more the realm of marketing than that of engineering. :)
Godwin's law is only applicable to discussions.
Snapstream? Been there, done that, and found that it's even worse bloatware than what our friends in Redmond put out. Maybe it's changed by now (it's been a year or two for me), but I doubt it - if you have a company that seems to value bloat (for whatever reason), it's unlikely that future versions will contain less of it.