Does paper-ballot voting count as open source? (In pseudocode, 1. print ballots with boxes next to each name; 2. get voters to mark them with a nice clear 'X'; 3. count them in public the night of the election; I don't think it gets more open-source than that.)
It's not a difference in two names for the same thing; it's a difference in the object. I'm not saying either "burying" is defensible, but the difference matters. There's nothing inherent to the continued existence of the United States that demands that it be an empire. For what it's worth, I think the Soviet Union was every bit as imperialist.
Maybe it's because, in this case, there's no evidence of fraud. But go ahead and pretend your tit-for-tat thinking represents some kind of objective "balance."
Free clue: It wasn't Sequoia who contributed massively to one side's campaign and publicly guaranteed to "deliver" the election to their client.
Not to mention the way the "USA PATRIOT Act" was rushed through. People react to this sort of news as though the Congress' rules are somehow fair and would prevent this kind of manipulation. People, that is, who haven't studied how Congress actually works.
He's the one who signed the bill, so perhaps you should direct your complaints to him and his enablers. For my part, I'll admit that I have a little OCD thing about freedom. There are worse obsessions, I think.
Bush, through a frightening number of executive orders, is ignoring the legislative process where laws are debated, written, and rewritten in the Legislative Branch
Not to mention asserting that the judicial branch, too, is irrelevant, especially through the claims made in signing statements about military tribunals and about the president's presumed authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" without any judicial review of this declaration.
But I'm told that thinking there's something wrong with these things proves that I "want the terrorists to win," so I guess I'd better just shut up now.
Generally it is control freaks and central authorities, or unsurprisingly members of "old media" that dislike wiki
Maybe academics are motivated by something other than self-interest, namely, a considered and developed care for the subjects to which they have devoted their lives. Just a thought.
The very same thing could be said to the many people flocking to and defending Wikipedia: "don't reject the old models of scholarship and intellectual apprenticeship, but adapt yourself to them." Guess which one is easier?
that's not bad, in the fast world we live in.
This is a virtually meaningless statement. It still takes a damned long time to learn how to build a ship, play a violin, read philosophy, be a good parent, etc. and no increase in "speed" in this "fast world" is ever going to change that. The only thing that's changing or getting faster is people's willingness to pretend that the internet will make all of human life an instant affair. The practical upshot of this pretense is that people simply don't engage in those activities that would require a long process of training and self-development (your "don't reject, adapt" comes to mind again), preferring instead to mouth self-important platitudes about progress. If people don't become expert in those things it takes a long time to learn, then there will be fewer people around to teach the next bunch, and the next bunch, and so on. The skill will have been destroyed.
You may not know him, but he's a average to major celeb in grassroots political organizing for Democratic candidates. I don't know why you mention geocities and myspace, unless you think "blogger" always means "teenage diarist." His site coordinates contributions to candidates nation-wide.
For that purpose--that is, being a kind of running "Who's Who"--Wikipedia works pretty well. That said, as a professor, I scoff when students show that the only thing they know about a subject is from Wikipedia. This scoffing is a bit of theater designed to transmit unambiguously the message that the student's claim "I've only read Wikipedia, but I think that x is..." is laughably inadequate for most things. (P.S. I wouldn't necessarily say that about some obscure corner of a technical or scientific area that they knew about otherwise. There, too, Wikipedia hits the mark.)
True, but my point is it is only for less money...
2)...than without a coupon.
I have a feeling this is like "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling." Both are true (well, not of that swill the beer commercial was selling), so neither is the whole truth. I still think a pricing scheme that depends on coupons or rebates is essentially bogus.
When I first started doing my own grocery shopping, I thought it was the coolest thing evar that you could just open up the newspaper, cut out these worthless strips of paper, and hand them in to get a discount.
Then I realized that the "discount" is only a savings if you were going to spend the money anyway. I noticed this because I would adjust my choice of items to purchase based on what there were coupons for, thinking "I've got to buy these Green Giant peas, because if I don't, it's like I'm throwing away 29 cents. In fact, if I buy 5, I'll be saving $1.45." The proof of why this is not "saving money" is left as an exercise for the reader.
Some people have voiced their concern that this release is not worth the 2.0 moniker. I however don't understand the point. If numbers are to be believed, this version is as incremental as 1.5 was for 1.0
This is an exceptionally bad argument. In version-land, 1.0-->1.5 != 1.5-->2.0. This is where things like "version 1.13" come from. It's simply not a decimal representation. So, unless there's some compelling change, whether it be to functionality and UI or to the underlying code base, there's no justification for bumping the major version number. (Chessmaster 9000 is, of course, a special case.) This is in no way to denigrate the efforts of the development team.
Questions: Was the bomb that went off made of plutonium or uranium? Which was prohibited by the agreement Clinton forged in 1994 and which stayed in force until Bush pulled out of it in 2002? As for "can't negotiate...," what's your alternative?
For those in this thread who claim there's something wrong with pointing out the source's demonstrated bias, please consider this thought experiment: if the folks who put up one of the 9/11 conspiracy "documentaries" started screaming bloody murder about how YouTube had censored their videos, would it be somehow illegitimate to note that they're conspiracy nuts? I don't think so, especially since that trait is relevantly related to the very charges they are making; that is, they are claiming their political messages are being unfairly suppressed by an authority they think is thereby exhibiting its own bias.
Some people here are complaining about this because they say it will make people form (negative) presuppositions about the value of the information they're about to receive on the basis of presuppositions about the character of the source. I happen to think the idea underlying this criticism is wrong-headed. You should make presuppositions, you need to make presuppositions, and in all cases, you do make presuppositions whenever you're about to receive any information. The issue is not to eliminate them all (an infinite and impossible task), but to recognize them for what they are--namely, hypotheses--and treat them as such. (For me, that means to acknowledge them as shaping expectation and as open to revision.)
I agree he isn't very relevant. The issue of blaming him, however, is, since this tactic is occasionally trotted out as a last resort for Republicans grasping at straws. Just two days ago, you had Sen. John McCain quoted on the front page of the New York Time, blaming him for the current nuclear situation in North Korea.
In general, you should look up the "Clenis" and learn about its magical powers.
It may be unfunny, but it is _not_ off-topic. Read the story headline. Now think. Now read the story headline again. Now think of a protein gel... quickly stopping bleeding.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if by "no less susceptible" you mean "also susceptible."
Does paper-ballot voting count as open source? (In pseudocode, 1. print ballots with boxes next to each name; 2. get voters to mark them with a nice clear 'X'; 3. count them in public the night of the election; I don't think it gets more open-source than that.)
Debatable, but even if true, irrelevant to the question. You implied "U.S." = "U.S. Empire," which is false.
It's not a difference in two names for the same thing; it's a difference in the object. I'm not saying either "burying" is defensible, but the difference matters. There's nothing inherent to the continued existence of the United States that demands that it be an empire. For what it's worth, I think the Soviet Union was every bit as imperialist.
Maybe it's because, in this case, there's no evidence of fraud. But go ahead and pretend your tit-for-tat thinking represents some kind of objective "balance."
Free clue: It wasn't Sequoia who contributed massively to one side's campaign and publicly guaranteed to "deliver" the election to their client.
Not to mention the way the "USA PATRIOT Act" was rushed through. People react to this sort of news as though the Congress' rules are somehow fair and would prevent this kind of manipulation. People, that is, who haven't studied how Congress actually works.
He's the one who signed the bill, so perhaps you should direct your complaints to him and his enablers. For my part, I'll admit that I have a little OCD thing about freedom. There are worse obsessions, I think.
Bush, through a frightening number of executive orders, is ignoring the legislative process where laws are debated, written, and rewritten in the Legislative Branch
Not to mention asserting that the judicial branch, too, is irrelevant, especially through the claims made in signing statements about military tribunals and about the president's presumed authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" without any judicial review of this declaration.
But I'm told that thinking there's something wrong with these things proves that I "want the terrorists to win," so I guess I'd better just shut up now.
Generally it is control freaks and central authorities, or unsurprisingly members of "old media" that dislike wiki
Maybe academics are motivated by something other than self-interest, namely, a considered and developed care for the subjects to which they have devoted their lives. Just a thought.
Don't reject, adapt
The very same thing could be said to the many people flocking to and defending Wikipedia: "don't reject the old models of scholarship and intellectual apprenticeship, but adapt yourself to them." Guess which one is easier?
that's not bad, in the fast world we live in.
This is a virtually meaningless statement. It still takes a damned long time to learn how to build a ship, play a violin, read philosophy, be a good parent, etc. and no increase in "speed" in this "fast world" is ever going to change that. The only thing that's changing or getting faster is people's willingness to pretend that the internet will make all of human life an instant affair. The practical upshot of this pretense is that people simply don't engage in those activities that would require a long process of training and self-development (your "don't reject, adapt" comes to mind again), preferring instead to mouth self-important platitudes about progress. If people don't become expert in those things it takes a long time to learn, then there will be fewer people around to teach the next bunch, and the next bunch, and so on. The skill will have been destroyed.
For that purpose--that is, being a kind of running "Who's Who"--Wikipedia works pretty well. That said, as a professor, I scoff when students show that the only thing they know about a subject is from Wikipedia. This scoffing is a bit of theater designed to transmit unambiguously the message that the student's claim "I've only read Wikipedia, but I think that x is..." is laughably inadequate for most things. (P.S. I wouldn't necessarily say that about some obscure corner of a technical or scientific area that they knew about otherwise. There, too, Wikipedia hits the mark.)
The point about marketing is fine, but I was just pointing out that the argument in the press release was bogus.
And FF3.0 will come out before IE8.
So, on the logic of the press release, Firefox is developing roughly 10 times as fast as IE.
1) You are getting more product for less money
True, but my point is it is only for less money...
2) ...than without a coupon.
I have a feeling this is like "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling." Both are true (well, not of that swill the beer commercial was selling), so neither is the whole truth. I still think a pricing scheme that depends on coupons or rebates is essentially bogus.
you are saving money by using the coupon
When I first started doing my own grocery shopping, I thought it was the coolest thing evar that you could just open up the newspaper, cut out these worthless strips of paper, and hand them in to get a discount.
Then I realized that the "discount" is only a savings if you were going to spend the money anyway. I noticed this because I would adjust my choice of items to purchase based on what there were coupons for, thinking "I've got to buy these Green Giant peas, because if I don't, it's like I'm throwing away 29 cents. In fact, if I buy 5, I'll be saving $1.45." The proof of why this is not "saving money" is left as an exercise for the reader.
Some people have voiced their concern that this release is not worth the 2.0 moniker. I however don't understand the point. If numbers are to be believed, this version is as incremental as 1.5 was for 1.0
This is an exceptionally bad argument. In version-land, 1.0-->1.5 != 1.5-->2.0. This is where things like "version 1.13" come from. It's simply not a decimal representation. So, unless there's some compelling change, whether it be to functionality and UI or to the underlying code base, there's no justification for bumping the major version number. (Chessmaster 9000 is, of course, a special case.) This is in no way to denigrate the efforts of the development team.
Cow poop is changing the world, too. (Though I'm not sure the world is changing cow poop.)
The point of the parody above is not to claim that no change is happening, but that the internet is not changing everything.
For example, it's not exactly making people better readers.
How dare you say
such a thing
to me?!
some experts estimate up to 15 percent of 'original prints' sold at auction houses are actually fake
Would they happen to be among the people aiming to sell expensive software to deal with this problem?
Questions: Was the bomb that went off made of plutonium or uranium? Which was prohibited by the agreement Clinton forged in 1994 and which stayed in force until Bush pulled out of it in 2002? As for "can't negotiate...," what's your alternative?
For those in this thread who claim there's something wrong with pointing out the source's demonstrated bias, please consider this thought experiment: if the folks who put up one of the 9/11 conspiracy "documentaries" started screaming bloody murder about how YouTube had censored their videos, would it be somehow illegitimate to note that they're conspiracy nuts? I don't think so, especially since that trait is relevantly related to the very charges they are making; that is, they are claiming their political messages are being unfairly suppressed by an authority they think is thereby exhibiting its own bias.
Some people here are complaining about this because they say it will make people form (negative) presuppositions about the value of the information they're about to receive on the basis of presuppositions about the character of the source. I happen to think the idea underlying this criticism is wrong-headed. You should make presuppositions, you need to make presuppositions, and in all cases, you do make presuppositions whenever you're about to receive any information. The issue is not to eliminate them all (an infinite and impossible task), but to recognize them for what they are--namely, hypotheses--and treat them as such. (For me, that means to acknowledge them as shaping expectation and as open to revision.)
I agree he isn't very relevant. The issue of blaming him, however, is, since this tactic is occasionally trotted out as a last resort for Republicans grasping at straws. Just two days ago, you had Sen. John McCain quoted on the front page of the New York Time, blaming him for the current nuclear situation in North Korea.
In general, you should look up the "Clenis" and learn about its magical powers.
(Some of us remember it when it was called Phoenix...)
Ack! You prove my point. And thanks for the reminder.
It may be unfunny, but it is _not_ off-topic. Read the story headline. Now think. Now read the story headline again. Now think of a protein gel ... quickly stopping bleeding.
Don't cloud the issue with facts, man.
Too late to rename? How many people remember "Mozilla Firebird"?