I didn't say "below cost"; I said "near or below cost". As I understand it, Wii consoles are sold above cost but still near cost. A Wii with the certificate to install your own code costs roughly $2000 plus the lease for a dedicated office.
Your mother is either a cow or an elephant. I never said your mother was an elephant.
Except you did. That's what 'or' does as a junction. You didn't say "near or below or above" cost. You omitted 'above' and included only 'near' and 'below'. Anyway, the words you're looking for are more along the lines of:
I'm sorry, you're right. Never below, but certainly near the cost.
Just doing my part to make the dot a better place... Have a great day.
Sweet. I should have replied to you instead. Yes, this.
My own son is becoming a gamer, and those patterns you're seeing are exactly, precisely why he plays games at all. He gets in the zone running the same loops over, and over, and over, and over again until he has them nailed down. That precision was honed by countless hours of repetition. (Variety is NOT his thing.) So in that specific skillset, he's going to eventually demonstrate a level of absolute mastery. Popping in another game would put him back to square one, but in his own element, he could really be described as superhuman in his ability.
I agree that it should boil that way, and would even stipulate that this is the design. It does not, however, appear to be the practice. There are at least a few examples of real things, well-published in the expected places, that were removed for not being worthy. They usually get restored, as far as I've heard, but it is still a problem and it hints at a greater issue.
It is quite clear that you don't get it. You simply don't know what's the idea behind wikipedia and therefore you keep confusing that wikipedia is there to act as a new geocities, which should store every piece of crap that is thrown at it, no matter how mind-numbingly wrong and self-serving it may be, just because it is there and someone happened to spend a couple of minutes spewing that nonsense on a new article. That is patently absurd and it is obvious to anyone that this would be bad for everyone.
It SHOULD be quite clear that I NEVER SAID THAT. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Observe:
1) If such a band were not noteworthy, there would be no external coverage of it, and therefore no sources to cite.
2) If such a band were noteworthy, someone somewhere would write something reputable about it.
This is immutable.
Once we acknowledge then, and picking the example of any random article covering any irrelevant garage band that fails at achieving anything, it is easy to understand that no one has the right to create an article on that irrelevant band and just expect that, no matter how irrelevant, meaningless and inconsequential that band is, no other user can edit it, no matter how many people acknowledge that such an article has absolutely no place in a quasi-encyclopedic medium which intends to be used as a respectable reference.
Again, because you NOT FUCKING LISTENING:
Such a band would not have any sources to cite.
Period, the end.
But if it did have sources, then your opinion that it wasn't as epic as Creed (or whatever your favorite band is) WOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER!
Do you read me now?
On second thought, I don't care. Do not bother to reply - I won't be reading it.
I'm not missing the point at all, but I do believe you are.
Besides that, wikipedia isn't myspace, where every band (and even non-band) is entitled to an article.
Wikipedia doesn't get to make that call, period. If the sources exist, then notability is determined outside of any other 'worth' as determined by the delete squad. Further, since Wikipedia has no control over whether these other media publish such things, they do not get a vote, and must therefore include it even when they believe it isn't 'cool enough' to be part of the internet chic. Otherwise Wikipedia is arbitrarily excluding data and isn't genuinely the 'sum of all human knowledge' any longer. They're simply the 'sum of stuff select geeks think is cool'...
In this way the 'garage band' angle is entirely, absolutely moot, and the fact that you're dwelling on it means you simply don't get it. Wikipedia doesn't 'decide' what notability means, the presence (or lack) of sources does that all by itself. No further criteria need exist.
AHH! There it is. I was wondering which axe you were looking to grind...
I never made this claim, and never will. Indeed, I find homeopathy as entirely similar to most of modern medicine, chiropractic care, acupuncture, etc: If you believe in it, it might work. If you don't it probably won't.
You're conflating your position to bolster your argument. Again I must call foul.
Observe how removing the 'notability' requirement would not necessarily remove the 'citations' requirement.
If you can cite it across whatever reasonable number of sources, then it is by definition notable. If that garage band makes the paper, or multiple papers, or what have you then their article should certainly stand. If they have no sources then they should not.
This is difficult to defend, I do understand, but comparing that to 'spam' isn't genuinely honest, is it?
The argument I was responding to was the one claiming that there should be no notability requirements at all and any article, no matter how trivial and no matter how few people it might be of interest to, should be included anyway.
Considering how near-to-hand the actual argument you're responding to is, I doubt you're being honest. Here's the real deal, to save you all the painful scrolling:
I can see no reason why Wikipedia should not have an article on almost any subject, no matter how obscure, so long as there is reasonable reference material to base it on.
Observe how someone would need to have written that 'reasonable reference material' in order for this premise of notability to move forward. You've omitted this stanza in an effort to assert a straw-man on the other party. That's a technical foul, I believe...
I think that is wrong and will reduce Wikipedia's usefulness. No matter how good the search is, if Wikipedia is 99.9% personal vanity pages, it's not a tool people will use anymore.
Again, how would those millions of personal vanity pages meet the criteria for 'reasonable reference material'?
To be fair, there's a stanza being omitted from his phrase. You probably know full well that it is implied, but you're attacking him anyway. I suspect you're not being entirely honest in your own position.
Take, for example:
Because Wikipedia uses moderators to apply standards of notability, deleting that which does not qualify, anything remaining is assumed to have this merit. Assuming you agree on the definition of the word notable, then in effect the moderators are filtering topics towards 'notability'.
This says largely the same thing, and isn't necessarily circular. "If Wikipedia upholds their standards, therein will you find material of value" is arguable, but not at all fallacious.
Please step away from the blowtorch and let the flame war die out...
You're picking and choosing your logical constants in a way that only supports your own position. Open your mind a bit:
Otherwise it would be a tape, perhaps but probably not with something still written on it, and totally useless. How could they tell it wasn't Enya?
Do you assume that the LP's in the Smithsonian actually get played? Do the ancient pieces of pottery still ever hold food and drink? Or do people just look at them as examples?
Secondly, I specified a *shitty* Pacman clone.
Perhaps future generations would marvel at how shitty it was. You can't rightly say. Again there are a lot of pieces of pottery that are mere fragments of a functional device. You'd be pretty pissed if I tried to pour your soup into such a fragment, because it makes for a really shitty bowl. Yet it is under glass, all the same.
Thirdly, you do realise that you're arguing about preserving a fictional (shitty) Pacman clone for a (shitty) 80s computer for some fictional museum in the year 3000 on the off-chance that the curator of the museum would give a fuck or even know what this piece of warped plastic he's been handed actually is?
Actually, I believe he's arguing that those who wish to preserve it not be prohibited from doing so. It isn't as if this is some 'you must preserve it' mandate. Only an appeal against the arbitrary restrictions.
You're saying it shouldn't be kept, while failing to realize that a lot of our antiquities in museums today were found in burial sites, sewers, and/or toilets. The people of that time didn't necessarily want to keep it either. They didn't judge the value of it in the same way we do today - which is rather the problem with your position, isn't it?
I'd quote the final stanza and rebut it thusly, but the point's made: You're not in the future, and are incapable of accurately anticipating what will or will not be of value. Gnash teeth if you wish, but lay of the obstructionism until your time machine is completed...
It's a prediction based on my observations. And, to be fair, I believe the motivations are emotional rather than logical, so you're probably on to something there. Anyway, just bookmark this post and refer back to it in a few years. We'll see who was right and who had his panties in a bunch.
Technically, lots of routers are assuming/64 as the network size, as does a lot of the way DHCP works for v6, especially in terms of prefix-delegation. ISPs are going to have to work quite hard, and give themselves a lot of un-needed support nightmares, to provide end-users with anything longer than a/64.
I still don't see why the ISP's DHCP couldn't be handing out things at the individual/64 level. Your home router is assumed to be able to do so, so why couldn't the ISP?
Privacy and security are not equivalent. I imagine the online privacy complainers as similar to a hot girl wearing clear plastic clothes. She doesn't want them to see her goodies, but fails to realize that her say-so is no longer sufficient the moment she leaves her home. She has options (wearing opaque clothes) but will never, ever, ever adapt to them so long as she can cry to the powers that be for redress. Yet ultimately, she's the one in the park with a transparent top.
Yes, eventually, I do. I do, though, feel a bit safer over here, far away from the KoolAid.
First of all, forget about NAT. There is no NAT with IPv6.
As I understand it, that's not strictly true. I understand there's some (quasi-religious) resistance to it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or could never exist.
NAT was a kludge to fix the problem of IPv4 addresses that actually ran out long ago.
...and champagne was intended to be grape juice. Are we to infer that everyone drinking champagne is 'doing it wrong'? Do we make them stop? Or do we perhaps simply accept that unintended consequences can sometimes benefit us?
I'll say it one more time, because it bears repeating: The fact that NAT breaks things is awesome for security.
I'll stipulate that this is accidental, but I fail to see a reason to care.
As for VPNs, you can still have a router at the border of your network that blocks all inbound traffic to all but the services/ports that are statically routed to pass-through. The rest can be handled by a VPN if that's what you want to do.
I'm willing to accept that this is functionally equivalent. Sort of. I mean, I could do that with IPv4 right this very minute. I could specify that each of my home IP's is public and simply firewall off all the inbound traffic. But why would I go to all that trouble when NAT and DHCP make things so very, very easy?
Please tell, what's wrong with the Windows firewall, it works doesn't it? Unless you know something the rest of us don't.
This is a separate topic, but I'll just propose that allowing the application with the flaws to protect against those flaws is foolhardy at best. Windows is what is flawed. You should never count on it to protect itself, otherwise it wouldn't have been flawed in the first place. Finally, any user with the power to install software (viruses) would likely also have the power to permit that software to modify the firewall. It is simply bad security both in concept and in practice.
NAT is only bad security in concept. In practice, it is genuinely quite effective.
According to Facebook, after graduating from high school in 1982, I went to mars university and graduated in 1911 with a degree in temporal physics.
If you have even two friends with accurate data, your deception is largely moot.
Not that it would matter with WoW anyway. You could lie to them, too, if you were so inclined. So long as that lie was still 'you', though, it wouldn't change a thing.
Of course, if they for business reasons want to restrict you to just one host there are ways to do that. But it probably wont be by restricting subnet size. More likely they will still give you the/64 subnet but put up a firewall rule that only allows traffic to one of your gazillion addresses.
And...if they did this, the functional difference between that and what I described is?
Ah so if we do not apply software computers do not remove virii, and therefore if we do not apply medicine people do not heal?
The latter part hasn't been my experience. And, seeing as humanity predates modern medicine by a wide, wide, wide margin, I assume I'm correct.
Computers, on the other hand, are not organic. They weren't evolved in nature, and thereby lack any defense mechanisms whatsoever. They have no need of them, since they're not organisms and are merely tools.
Looking back at your leg example. Without any doctor at all, is it impossible that the leg will see further use? Of course not. That sort of thing (depending on severity) can heal quite a bit on it's own. It may hobble you for life, but the organism can still eat, procreate, etc. Not so for a computer.
In short it's genuinely just a bad analogy to compare a man-made object to an evolved organism...
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say "below cost"; I said "near or below cost". As I understand it, Wii consoles are sold above cost but still near cost. A Wii with the certificate to install your own code costs roughly $2000 plus the lease for a dedicated office.
Your mother is either a cow or an elephant. I never said your mother was an elephant.
Except you did. That's what 'or' does as a junction. You didn't say "near or below or above" cost. You omitted 'above' and included only 'near' and 'below'. Anyway, the words you're looking for are more along the lines of:
I'm sorry, you're right. Never below, but certainly near the cost.
Just doing my part to make the dot a better place... Have a great day.
Sweet. I should have replied to you instead. Yes, this.
My own son is becoming a gamer, and those patterns you're seeing are exactly, precisely why he plays games at all. He gets in the zone running the same loops over, and over, and over, and over again until he has them nailed down. That precision was honed by countless hours of repetition. (Variety is NOT his thing.) So in that specific skillset, he's going to eventually demonstrate a level of absolute mastery. Popping in another game would put him back to square one, but in his own element, he could really be described as superhuman in his ability.
Christian Bale? Really? Fuck Christian Bale and his mumbling Batman-killing crap.
Personally, I loved 'The Fighter':
Wahlberg: "Say 'hi' to your motha for me."
Bale: [batman]"I ALREADY DID"[/batman]
I agree that it should boil that way, and would even stipulate that this is the design. It does not, however, appear to be the practice. There are at least a few examples of real things, well-published in the expected places, that were removed for not being worthy. They usually get restored, as far as I've heard, but it is still a problem and it hints at a greater issue.
It is quite clear that you don't get it. You simply don't know what's the idea behind wikipedia and therefore you keep confusing that wikipedia is there to act as a new geocities, which should store every piece of crap that is thrown at it, no matter how mind-numbingly wrong and self-serving it may be, just because it is there and someone happened to spend a couple of minutes spewing that nonsense on a new article. That is patently absurd and it is obvious to anyone that this would be bad for everyone.
It SHOULD be quite clear that I NEVER SAID THAT. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Observe:
1) If such a band were not noteworthy, there would be no external coverage of it, and therefore no sources to cite.
2) If such a band were noteworthy, someone somewhere would write something reputable about it.
This is immutable.
Once we acknowledge then, and picking the example of any random article covering any irrelevant garage band that fails at achieving anything, it is easy to understand that no one has the right to create an article on that irrelevant band and just expect that, no matter how irrelevant, meaningless and inconsequential that band is, no other user can edit it, no matter how many people acknowledge that such an article has absolutely no place in a quasi-encyclopedic medium which intends to be used as a respectable reference.
Again, because you NOT FUCKING LISTENING:
Such a band would not have any sources to cite.
Period, the end.
But if it did have sources, then your opinion that it wasn't as epic as Creed (or whatever your favorite band is) WOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER!
Do you read me now?
On second thought, I don't care. Do not bother to reply - I won't be reading it.
your feeble encryption is no match for my clipboard.
I came to post the exact same thing.
Further, why take the photo at all if you're not going to keep it for more than a limited time?
I'm not missing the point at all, but I do believe you are.
Besides that, wikipedia isn't myspace, where every band (and even non-band) is entitled to an article.
Wikipedia doesn't get to make that call, period. If the sources exist, then notability is determined outside of any other 'worth' as determined by the delete squad. Further, since Wikipedia has no control over whether these other media publish such things, they do not get a vote, and must therefore include it even when they believe it isn't 'cool enough' to be part of the internet chic. Otherwise Wikipedia is arbitrarily excluding data and isn't genuinely the 'sum of all human knowledge' any longer. They're simply the 'sum of stuff select geeks think is cool'...
In this way the 'garage band' angle is entirely, absolutely moot, and the fact that you're dwelling on it means you simply don't get it. Wikipedia doesn't 'decide' what notability means, the presence (or lack) of sources does that all by itself. No further criteria need exist.
I genuinely don't require your approval and/or inclusion. Thanks though for assuming.
So, again, if the reference requirement is met, there is NO NEED for a notability requirement - is there?
And homeopathy is a miracle cure.
AHH! There it is. I was wondering which axe you were looking to grind...
I never made this claim, and never will. Indeed, I find homeopathy as entirely similar to most of modern medicine, chiropractic care, acupuncture, etc: If you believe in it, it might work. If you don't it probably won't.
As amazing as that is, it holds entirely true.
You're conflating your position to bolster your argument. Again I must call foul.
Observe how removing the 'notability' requirement would not necessarily remove the 'citations' requirement.
If you can cite it across whatever reasonable number of sources, then it is by definition notable. If that garage band makes the paper, or multiple papers, or what have you then their article should certainly stand. If they have no sources then they should not.
This is difficult to defend, I do understand, but comparing that to 'spam' isn't genuinely honest, is it?
The argument I was responding to was the one claiming that there should be no notability requirements at all and any article, no matter how trivial and no matter how few people it might be of interest to, should be included anyway.
Considering how near-to-hand the actual argument you're responding to is, I doubt you're being honest. Here's the real deal, to save you all the painful scrolling:
I can see no reason why Wikipedia should not have an article on almost any subject, no matter how obscure, so long as there is reasonable reference material to base it on.
Observe how someone would need to have written that 'reasonable reference material' in order for this premise of notability to move forward. You've omitted this stanza in an effort to assert a straw-man on the other party. That's a technical foul, I believe...
I think that is wrong and will reduce Wikipedia's usefulness. No matter how good the search is, if Wikipedia is 99.9% personal vanity pages, it's not a tool people will use anymore.
Again, how would those millions of personal vanity pages meet the criteria for 'reasonable reference material'?
To be fair, there's a stanza being omitted from his phrase. You probably know full well that it is implied, but you're attacking him anyway. I suspect you're not being entirely honest in your own position.
Take, for example:
Because Wikipedia uses moderators to apply standards of notability, deleting that which does not qualify, anything remaining is assumed to have this merit. Assuming you agree on the definition of the word notable, then in effect the moderators are filtering topics towards 'notability'.
This says largely the same thing, and isn't necessarily circular. "If Wikipedia upholds their standards, therein will you find material of value" is arguable, but not at all fallacious.
Please step away from the blowtorch and let the flame war die out...
You're picking and choosing your logical constants in a way that only supports your own position. Open your mind a bit:
Otherwise it would be a tape, perhaps but probably not with something still written on it, and totally useless. How could they tell it wasn't Enya?
Do you assume that the LP's in the Smithsonian actually get played? Do the ancient pieces of pottery still ever hold food and drink? Or do people just look at them as examples?
Secondly, I specified a *shitty* Pacman clone.
Perhaps future generations would marvel at how shitty it was. You can't rightly say. Again there are a lot of pieces of pottery that are mere fragments of a functional device. You'd be pretty pissed if I tried to pour your soup into such a fragment, because it makes for a really shitty bowl. Yet it is under glass, all the same.
Thirdly, you do realise that you're arguing about preserving a fictional (shitty) Pacman clone for a (shitty) 80s computer for some fictional museum in the year 3000 on the off-chance that the curator of the museum would give a fuck or even know what this piece of warped plastic he's been handed actually is?
Actually, I believe he's arguing that those who wish to preserve it not be prohibited from doing so. It isn't as if this is some 'you must preserve it' mandate. Only an appeal against the arbitrary restrictions.
You're saying it shouldn't be kept, while failing to realize that a lot of our antiquities in museums today were found in burial sites, sewers, and/or toilets. The people of that time didn't necessarily want to keep it either. They didn't judge the value of it in the same way we do today - which is rather the problem with your position, isn't it?
I'd quote the final stanza and rebut it thusly, but the point's made: You're not in the future, and are incapable of accurately anticipating what will or will not be of value. Gnash teeth if you wish, but lay of the obstructionism until your time machine is completed...
It's a community. All of those are made up of individuals. This is not new.
It's a prediction based on my observations. And, to be fair, I believe the motivations are emotional rather than logical, so you're probably on to something there. Anyway, just bookmark this post and refer back to it in a few years. We'll see who was right and who had his panties in a bunch.
Technically, lots of routers are assuming /64 as the network size, as does a lot of the way DHCP works for v6, especially in terms of prefix-delegation. ISPs are going to have to work quite hard, and give themselves a lot of un-needed support nightmares, to provide end-users with anything longer than a /64.
I still don't see why the ISP's DHCP couldn't be handing out things at the individual /64 level. Your home router is assumed to be able to do so, so why couldn't the ISP?
Okay, but examine the impact of our two positions, were either of us wrong:
If you're wrong, people get burned by expecting something that doesn't exist.
If I'm wrong, people are making better choices when they didn't genuinely need to do so.
Privacy and security are not equivalent. I imagine the online privacy complainers as similar to a hot girl wearing clear plastic clothes. She doesn't want them to see her goodies, but fails to realize that her say-so is no longer sufficient the moment she leaves her home. She has options (wearing opaque clothes) but will never, ever, ever adapt to them so long as she can cry to the powers that be for redress. Yet ultimately, she's the one in the park with a transparent top.
You really need to do more research on IPv6
Yes, eventually, I do. I do, though, feel a bit safer over here, far away from the KoolAid.
First of all, forget about NAT. There is no NAT with IPv6.
As I understand it, that's not strictly true. I understand there's some (quasi-religious) resistance to it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or could never exist.
NAT was a kludge to fix the problem of IPv4 addresses that actually ran out long ago.
...and champagne was intended to be grape juice. Are we to infer that everyone drinking champagne is 'doing it wrong'? Do we make them stop? Or do we perhaps simply accept that unintended consequences can sometimes benefit us?
I'll say it one more time, because it bears repeating: The fact that NAT breaks things is awesome for security.
I'll stipulate that this is accidental, but I fail to see a reason to care.
As for VPNs, you can still have a router at the border of your network that blocks all inbound traffic to all but the services/ports that are statically routed to pass-through. The rest can be handled by a VPN if that's what you want to do.
I'm willing to accept that this is functionally equivalent. Sort of. I mean, I could do that with IPv4 right this very minute. I could specify that each of my home IP's is public and simply firewall off all the inbound traffic. But why would I go to all that trouble when NAT and DHCP make things so very, very easy?
Please tell, what's wrong with the Windows firewall, it works doesn't it? Unless you know something the rest of us don't.
This is a separate topic, but I'll just propose that allowing the application with the flaws to protect against those flaws is foolhardy at best. Windows is what is flawed. You should never count on it to protect itself, otherwise it wouldn't have been flawed in the first place. Finally, any user with the power to install software (viruses) would likely also have the power to permit that software to modify the firewall. It is simply bad security both in concept and in practice.
NAT is only bad security in concept. In practice, it is genuinely quite effective.
According to Facebook, after graduating from high school in 1982, I went to mars university and graduated in 1911 with a degree in temporal physics.
If you have even two friends with accurate data, your deception is largely moot.
Not that it would matter with WoW anyway. You could lie to them, too, if you were so inclined. So long as that lie was still 'you', though, it wouldn't change a thing.
Of course, if they for business reasons want to restrict you to just one host there are ways to do that. But it probably wont be by restricting subnet size. More likely they will still give you the /64 subnet but put up a firewall rule that only allows traffic to one of your gazillion addresses.
And...if they did this, the functional difference between that and what I described is?
Your feigned disinterest is betrayed by your post count.
Bad point is bad.
Medicine is merely an aid to the underlying biological processes. Quality of life improvement, and little else.
Yeah it could be new.
You can get that SIM today, and for a short while in the future. I can't imagine that this either will last forever.
Ah so if we do not apply software computers do not remove virii, and therefore if we do not apply medicine people do not heal?
The latter part hasn't been my experience. And, seeing as humanity predates modern medicine by a wide, wide, wide margin, I assume I'm correct.
Computers, on the other hand, are not organic. They weren't evolved in nature, and thereby lack any defense mechanisms whatsoever. They have no need of them, since they're not organisms and are merely tools.
Looking back at your leg example. Without any doctor at all, is it impossible that the leg will see further use? Of course not. That sort of thing (depending on severity) can heal quite a bit on it's own. It may hobble you for life, but the organism can still eat, procreate, etc. Not so for a computer.
In short it's genuinely just a bad analogy to compare a man-made object to an evolved organism...