Wait, wait. How is messing with other people's stuff on the net from safely behind a computer 'gutsy'?
Ah, yet another person who mistakenly assumes what they do on the Internet is anonymous and therefore risk-free. If you're just being an annoying troll, you're relatively safe, but if you get the law and security experts involved, the supposed anonymity drops away pretty quickly most of the time.
No, see, he doesn't care if it's mom or pop or not. He's not saying anyone should be punished, he's saying no one should get special treatment. You're the one who seems to think small companies deserve special protection from entities doing things efficiently by reaching an economy of scale.
Note to moderators: dishonest arguments aren't insightful, even if they support a conclusion you like.
I nowadays perceive it as a humanitarian issue--embargoing Cuba hurts the Communist leadership that is oppressing the people there (seems pretty clear that blocking IM hurts the people and helps the oppressors, but whatever). The people who care about it most are people who fled Cuba and hatehatehate the Cuban government, so policy reflects that.
So if you had a choice between saving a vat of frozen embryos from a fire or a single person of any age, you would pick the embryos? How about if the single person was your child; would you still pick the vat of embryos?
This isn't a choice between saving one or saving the other. It's killing one to save the other vs. not killing one, leaving the other to die. The vast majority of people consider killing very different from not saving.
(I, however, would kill the embryo. No mind (no mental activity) = no moral significance, as far as I'm concerned.)
They actually already tried that. Oil companies in the 1980s, I believe. But it's always ready for a revival. I hear it mentioned every time the temperature drops below 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
Conyers is one of the most awesome congressmen out there. He made one mistake recently, but he has an excellent track record for demanding transparency and accountability in the government.
Except that we're not starving. We're getting obese on our power usage--or we would be if we used it all instead of wasting it with inefficient technologies (moving a 2000-pound vehicles to move a 150 pound person, for example.
Note that, according to the quote from Jimmy Wales in the linked article, this system would only be used "on a subset of articles, the boundaries of which can be adjusted over time to manage the backlog."
Wikipedia has had, for years, had 'protected' pages that could only be edited by admins. This was reserved for pages subjected to 'edit wars' and very frequently vandalised pages (e.g., the front page, Adolf Hitler, etc.)
Then, in 2005 they added semi-protection, which allowed only registered users to edit the page. This is used for frequently vandalised pages (e.g., Adolf Hilter) and was step toward more open editing, not less, and yet at that time many outlets, including Slashdot ran stories suggesting it was the opposite.
If this 'subset of articles, the boundaries of which can be adjusted over time to manage the backlog' is entirely (or very nearly entirely) limited to protected pages, or if it's limited to protected and semi-protected pages and trusted users consists of any registered user, it is once again making editing more open.
I doubt it's quite either of those, but it seems incredibly unlikely that this change will close editing of Wikipedia to any significant degree (and incredibly likely that reporters and commentators will decry this as the death of Wikipedia).
I suspect the article is misleading in saying 'Wikipedia'. It should probably say 'WikiMedia' (Wikipedia + Wiktionary + WikiBooks + WikiSources + WikiQuote + WikiMedia Commons (and this one is particularly relevant) + probably more).
Okay, important point people somehow miss: There is NO 'innocence until proven guilty'. There is PRESUMPTION of innocence until proven guilty. People always conflate knowledge with reality and it's just stupid.
But to move on: Presumption of innocents means you require proof to declare them guilty, not that people (and especially journalists) should declare them innocent. Slashdot clearly doesn't follow the journalistic neutral point of view, but they shouldn't baselessly make up facts when reporting on a lawsuit.
I think you need a desktop. Two-year-olds drop things. And throw things. With a desktop, he only needs to be able to reach the keyboard and mouse (and maybe the screen, so maybe get a CRT). That way, when he destroys it, you're only out twenty bucks, rather than several hundred. Plus, you could probably get a durable rubber-coated keyboard and latch it down somehow.
I guess you could give him an XO-1 and bolt it to the table. He might break off the ears, though. (The XO-1's 'don't' list says not for use by infants, but is silent on toddlers.:-)
Chrome's winning margin is huge, even though Firefox 3.04, Opera and Safari have incorporated V8.
Wait...what? Firefox 3.1 will have TraceMonkey, which is not V8 but is on par in terms of speed, but I've heard nothing about V8 being in 3.04. Seems extremely unlikely, as 3.04 is a minor update and adding a completely new scripting engine is a truly massive update.
I think Safari uses/will soon use SquirrelFish, a separate (but probably related, as it's WebKit) JIT compiler. I'm not sure what Opera's doing in the area.
Replace the women's rights pamphlet with a (non-explicit) circular defending paedophilia. Do you think our society would still protect your freedom of speech if you began circulating that? How long before they beat a confession out of you? Who's going to defend you?
I'm pretty sure such things are distributed in the US without the distributors being beaten by the government, and I know there are plenty of lawyers and organisations willing to defend such a person. They might face a lot of illegal abuse, but not the death penalty or twenty years prison time.
I wonder how this will affect Google's relationship with the Mozilla foundation? IIRC, Google is one of Mozilla's primary sources of funding, as they pay for the rights to be the default search engine on Firefox.
If it reduces Firefox' marketshare, it will reduce the number of people using Firefox' search bar to search Google, and reduce payments. Otherwise, it won't. Google's not going to stop paying for searches just because they're making a browser, and Firefox has always chosen the default they thought produced the best results.
Queue the crazy 'Google will stab Firefox in the back and throw them into a pool of sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads' because they see them as a threat' posts. Google's a corporation, not a megalomaniacal Hollywood supervillain.
Huge wind farms in the Midwest will only benefit the Midwest.
And anyone who buys products produced in the Midwest using electricity, such as: everything produced in the Midwest.
And everyone who breathes air that comes from the Midwest, such as: Mexico? Canada? I don't really know. But really: everyone.
It kind of sucks that wind power won't be directly available to everyone, and that could even be an argument against federally-funded research into it, but it's still a good, useful resource that will benefit large portions of the country directly and all of us indirectly.
This law will either be ignored or the state will end up suing itself for non-compliance.
Suing itself? No. Charging the investor-owned utilities 0.05 USD/kwh up to 25 000 000 USD, yes.
Seems to me that the cap makes it a small fee for big suppliers and a relatively large one for small suppliers. A shame, really, but a laudable effort to get something good done. Perhaps the fine should start out tiny and grow over time (with no cap) rather than using a hard deadline.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yet another person who mistakenly assumes what they do on the Internet is anonymous and therefore risk-free. If you're just being an annoying troll, you're relatively safe, but if you get the law and security experts involved, the supposed anonymity drops away pretty quickly most of the time.
I pressed ^t, typed in 'wp memristor' (actually it was either 'wp ^v' or 'wp [middle-click]'), and pressed Enter. Bookmark keywords are your friend.
This is Slashdot. I think we should assume people are capable of locating Wikipedia on their own.
No, see, he doesn't care if it's mom or pop or not. He's not saying anyone should be punished, he's saying no one should get special treatment. You're the one who seems to think small companies deserve special protection from entities doing things efficiently by reaching an economy of scale.
Note to moderators: dishonest arguments aren't insightful, even if they support a conclusion you like.
I nowadays perceive it as a humanitarian issue--embargoing Cuba hurts the Communist leadership that is oppressing the people there (seems pretty clear that blocking IM hurts the people and helps the oppressors, but whatever). The people who care about it most are people who fled Cuba and hatehatehate the Cuban government, so policy reflects that.
Your post mentions all those things, and yet failed to scare me.
Maybe there's more to scariness than bland reference to things that scare people.
Yes. Hell yes.
(Tyler Cowen is economist who co-writes Marginal Revolution, an economics blog (among other things).
Wash your hands.
What media sources do you use? I see it mentioned in the news (NY Times and various online sources) probably at least once a week.
Which is strange, as change is news. 'People still dying of obesity, just like last week/month/year' is not.
This isn't a choice between saving one or saving the other. It's killing one to save the other vs. not killing one, leaving the other to die. The vast majority of people consider killing very different from not saving.
(I, however, would kill the embryo. No mind (no mental activity) = no moral significance, as far as I'm concerned.)
They actually already tried that. Oil companies in the 1980s, I believe. But it's always ready for a revival. I hear it mentioned every time the temperature drops below 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
The follow-up article explains.
Wil Wheaton has evaluated the Author Guild's claim and found it stupid. Other wise authors concur.
The Authors Guild acts more like you'd expect from a Book Publishers Guild, though I'm sure a large number of authors are on their side on this.
Conyers is one of the most awesome congressmen out there. He made one mistake recently, but he has an excellent track record for demanding transparency and accountability in the government.
Except that we're not starving. We're getting obese on our power usage--or we would be if we used it all instead of wasting it with inefficient technologies (moving a 2000-pound vehicles to move a 150 pound person, for example.
Wikipedia has had, for years, had 'protected' pages that could only be edited by admins. This was reserved for pages subjected to 'edit wars' and very frequently vandalised pages (e.g., the front page, Adolf Hitler, etc.)
Then, in 2005 they added semi-protection, which allowed only registered users to edit the page. This is used for frequently vandalised pages (e.g., Adolf Hilter) and was step toward more open editing, not less, and yet at that time many outlets, including Slashdot ran stories suggesting it was the opposite.
If this 'subset of articles, the boundaries of which can be adjusted over time to manage the backlog' is entirely (or very nearly entirely) limited to protected pages, or if it's limited to protected and semi-protected pages and trusted users consists of any registered user, it is once again making editing more open.
I doubt it's quite either of those, but it seems incredibly unlikely that this change will close editing of Wikipedia to any significant degree (and incredibly likely that reporters and commentators will decry this as the death of Wikipedia).
I suspect the article is misleading in saying 'Wikipedia'. It should probably say 'WikiMedia' (Wikipedia + Wiktionary + WikiBooks + WikiSources + WikiQuote + WikiMedia Commons (and this one is particularly relevant) + probably more).
Okay, important point people somehow miss: There is NO 'innocence until proven guilty'. There is PRESUMPTION of innocence until proven guilty. People always conflate knowledge with reality and it's just stupid.
But to move on: Presumption of innocents means you require proof to declare them guilty, not that people (and especially journalists) should declare them innocent. Slashdot clearly doesn't follow the journalistic neutral point of view, but they shouldn't baselessly make up facts when reporting on a lawsuit.
I guess you could give him an XO-1 and bolt it to the table. He might break off the ears, though. (The XO-1's 'don't' list says not for use by infants, but is silent on toddlers. :-)
Wait...what? Firefox 3.1 will have TraceMonkey, which is not V8 but is on par in terms of speed, but I've heard nothing about V8 being in 3.04. Seems extremely unlikely, as 3.04 is a minor update and adding a completely new scripting engine is a truly massive update.
I think Safari uses/will soon use SquirrelFish, a separate (but probably related, as it's WebKit) JIT compiler. I'm not sure what Opera's doing in the area.
I assume they'll start patenting in areas relevant to your company.
Lots of places apply for defensive patents for their technologies. This is simply a company you can hire to do that for you.
I'm pretty sure such things are distributed in the US without the distributors being beaten by the government, and I know there are plenty of lawyers and organisations willing to defend such a person. They might face a lot of illegal abuse, but not the death penalty or twenty years prison time.
According to my math team, probabilities don't go below zero percent.
If it reduces Firefox' marketshare, it will reduce the number of people using Firefox' search bar to search Google, and reduce payments. Otherwise, it won't. Google's not going to stop paying for searches just because they're making a browser, and Firefox has always chosen the default they thought produced the best results.
Queue the crazy 'Google will stab Firefox in the back and throw them into a pool of sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads' because they see them as a threat' posts. Google's a corporation, not a megalomaniacal Hollywood supervillain.
And anyone who buys products produced in the Midwest using electricity, such as: everything produced in the Midwest.
And everyone who breathes air that comes from the Midwest, such as: Mexico? Canada? I don't really know. But really: everyone.
It kind of sucks that wind power won't be directly available to everyone, and that could even be an argument against federally-funded research into it, but it's still a good, useful resource that will benefit large portions of the country directly and all of us indirectly.
Suing itself? No. Charging the investor-owned utilities 0.05 USD/kwh up to 25 000 000 USD, yes.
Seems to me that the cap makes it a small fee for big suppliers and a relatively large one for small suppliers. A shame, really, but a laudable effort to get something good done. Perhaps the fine should start out tiny and grow over time (with no cap) rather than using a hard deadline.