If Congress genuinely opposed the maneuver, couldn't they simply pass a law enacting the restrictions they wanted? My understanding is that executive departments need to operate within the law. The legislative decides, the executive abides.
Now, if the bought and paid for congressmen just wanted to appear populist while not actually doing anything, I suppose simply speaking out against the decision would do fine.
Well, it would seem obvious that you'd know that, yes. And, yet...
The difference between reasoning by analogy and metaphor is causality. If you use your analogy to make "new" information, than its reasoning, if you only use it based on the similarities you've already seen to convey understanding, then it's metaphor. The fact is, it's a very fine line to walk. When talking about entirely mental things like love, the line gets a little wider, since the thoughts involved affect the process itself to a great degree. However, when speaking about the defeat of an entity that will likely never know your thoughts, it's largely insignificant.
The fact is, it seems to me that you're moving from analogy to new facts. Since the RIAA are easily characterized as dinosaurs, anachronistic beings that are no longer necessary, you suggest tactics analogous to the those used against the actual lizards. Ignoring certain things like:
The fact that people actively engaged in resisting the RIAA don't multiply like egg-stealing mammals. There is still a vast populace of music purchasers that do what they're told.
"Surreptitiously stealing eggs" (i.e. sharing RIAA songs) does not in fact weaken the dinosaur, it strengthens it (by increasing demand). As all those surveys show, that sharing will increase the amount of albums that are purchased.
And so forth. Thinking in terms of the analogy will tend to make your mind overlook these kinds of things. It's confirmation bias, and it's inevitable. It's one of the fundamental problems with drawing premature analogies.
Reasoning by analogy is an extremely easy trap for human minds to fall into, and you may not even realize that you're doing it. Believe it or not, our thoughts become sloppy when we're not looking at them, even if the kinds of mistakes that we'd make seem entirely foolish to the conscious. But, then, its possible that you've arrogated the sum of your intellectual skill to your conscious mind.
Oh, incidentally, if you're wondering about the foe thing, it was some time in the past, and I don't really recall why.
This is a fallacy known as "reasoning by analogy". While, yes, an unfunded RIAA is a powerless RIAA, there very well may be other ways to effect the desired changes in the world. Ancient ecosystems have very different rules from the modern legal system, and you shouldn't expect them to behave in the same way.
For a full-scale thing? Probably. But this is a much easier challenge. From TFA:
There are two levels of difficulty, with awards for first and second place at each level. Level 1 requires a vehicle to take off vertically from a designated launch area, climb to an altitude of at least 150 feet , remain aloft for at least 90 seconds while traveling horizontally to a landing pad 300 feet away, then land vertically. Level 2, which is a more difficult course, requires a vehicle to take off from a designated launch area, ascend to an altitude of 150 feet, hover for 180 seconds, then land precisely on a simulated, rocky, lunar surface 300 feet away.
I think this is really geared toward groups of students, and clever entrepreneurs.
Maybe next they can provide a $2000 prize for climbing Mount Everest?*
*Note: must supply own climbing tools, tents, fuel, oxygen, clothes, and sherpas
Yeah, but there aren't any laws preventing my friends from duplicating their couches and giving me a copy if mine gets damaged (or if I just want a new one).
"Intellectual property" (the term itself is a tragic example of language being subverted by moneyed interests) has only tenuous similarities to real property, and almost none in a just society.
Yes, but the crux of a pun is the double meaning. Upon seeing a flying car, the joke could be "It's high tech alright. Very high tech." But I really doubt that most people would associate an ordinary elevator with "technology". They've been around for over a century.
Perhaps we could be discussing the latest developments in steam locomotives, as well?
...but how is a high-capacity elevator high tech? I always assumed that being "high tech" involved overcoming some sort of engineering or scientific hurdle. A wrist computer, flying car, video cell phone, etc.
Is there any reason this thing couldn't've been built with 1950s elevator technology?
What progress? Bands nobody's heard of, trivia, and spammy-company articles? Oh, yeah, that's central to creating a useful encyclopedia.
And, of course, by 3 people, I assume you're referring to the thousand-plus administrators, and orders of magnitude more ordinary users who get along just fine with the rules?
I'd suggest that you try and view Wikipedia as a reader sometime, rather than an editor. I think they benefit a great deal more from the rules about citing sources.
Re:There's nothing left that wikki doesn't know!
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 1
I think you are having a hard time seeing that different sites are for different things. If Slashdot were about only moderating the comments from important people, then you'd be correct in your action. But it's not. Slashdot is a place that welcomes original insight and analysis. Wikipedia has a different set of rules, which provide a very different kind of atmosphere. Neither one would really give me the complete picture, and that's why I visit both. Slashdot is a social community designed to allow us to share insights and ideas. Wikipedia is a place to collect expert opinion to generate a coherent overview of the world.
Coming back to Wikipedia, where was it that it became the directory of things that are valuable? Notability and verifiability have nothing to do with how valuable something is. They can't; value is wholly subjective. They have to with whether someone can check their veracity in a reliable (which generally includes independent) source.
You seem to be taking these things very personally; you shouldn't. I'm not notable, and I happen to think I'm a great (if imperfect) person.
The meek get to inherit private lives where they are free to pursue (and to varying degrees obtain) their dreams, meet wonderful people, and do fantastic things. Is being included in some encyclopedia so very important to make one worthwhile?
Here's the funny thing: removal is one of the most important parts of making good content. Read it again: Removal is one of the most important parts of making good content. Ask any professional editor. People tend to get self-involved, and write things that don't need to be written. Things that aren't useful or informative. Wikipedia is filled with these things. Isn't is possible that writing the best encyclopedia possible might require removing the poor writing, and irrelevant trivia, left behind by people who don't know what they're talking about?
Wikipedia has people screaming at it both "be more accurate and relevant!" and "stop deleting things!". These are, to an extent, mutually exclusive goals. Inaccurate and irrelevant information sometimes needs to be removed.
No, you can't get good content by just deleting. But you can't get it by just adding, either. Wikipedia keeps getting added to, that means it needs to keep getting trimmed.
So, you'd like to live in the Wild West? Robberies, murders, disease. Sounds great huh? Well, it does to the overly-romanticizing imagination of someone who has the luxury of living in a time when those things are just story, not reality, and only wants to think of the advantages and none of the downsides. This is not to say that all systems must be authoritarian. But a balance needs to be struck. There need to be rules. Really, there do. Sometimes there are too many, sometimes there are not enough.
But, hey, wouldn't it be great if we could just do what we wanted, without caring about fact checking or consistency? Yeah!...Until nine out of ten articles are about garage bands, hoaxes, and bored teenagers.
Wikipedia has a reasonable number of rules. Yes, it does require a learning curve. But, honestly, is there anything worth doing that doesn't? The community is usually pretty forgiving about well-intentioned mistakes.
Re:There's nothing left that wikki doesn't know!
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're wrong. Notability is a very important restriction. And it will very rarely remove something that is actually important. In order to meet notability, somebody reliable needs to write something about the subject. That's an incredibly small hurdle to jump over. And it there to prevent any idiot from spreading lies. What's to stop someone from setting up a website and just randomly making up falsehoods?
Furthermore, to claim that Wikipedia is of unlimited size is incorrect. Oh, technically, a vast number of articles could be created. But there are only so many good editors, and they need to spread across articles. If Wikipedia had 100 times as many articles, and the same number of active editors, each article would get massively less attention. That would result in an encyclopedia that is, overall, much lower quality.
And the articles that get deleted are generally of no real importance. Small organizations, neologisms, unimportant people. These aren't the kind of things that people are going to be looking for in an encyclopedia.
I assure you, a great many people on Wikipedia "grasp" your point of view; they just disagree with it.
Well, yeah, she was pretty clearly guilty (e.g. wiping the hard drive after she got in trouble). That's not the issue. It's a question as to whether the ruinous damages were justified.
Yeah, but I figured that didn't have the same contemporary "pop"; The U.S. seems to have more of an energy problem than a mineral problem (it's my understanding that soaring metals prices are just a side-effect of an all-around plummeting dollar).
In Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (a spiritual branch from the Civilization series, which I consider better than any of the Civ proper games that followed it), thermal boreholes are terrain improvements that provide +6 energy and minerals (a great deal by the game's standards).
Slashdot Mirror
If Congress genuinely opposed the maneuver, couldn't they simply pass a law enacting the restrictions they wanted? My understanding is that executive departments need to operate within the law. The legislative decides, the executive abides.
Now, if the bought and paid for congressmen just wanted to appear populist while not actually doing anything, I suppose simply speaking out against the decision would do fine.Yeah, but the GPS-guided deathlorry can stalk you wherever you are.
Maybe if the ultrasound machines find a way to start luring unsuspecting humans into hospitals?
...basically, by misdirecting trucks via GPS, the machines now have a way to kill us.
Not so much, actually.
Right.
Just like the creation of photography allowed predators to store pictures of naked children rather than riskily having to watch them each time.
Just like the creation of a postal system allowed predators to circulate drawings of naked children amongst each other.
Just like moving away from an agrarian society meant that predators might have more time to hide their illicit activities.
Just like moving out of communal caves and into private dwellings allowed predators to hide bad sexual activity easier.
There is more to the world than fucking worrying about child porn.
Well, it would seem obvious that you'd know that, yes. And, yet...
The difference between reasoning by analogy and metaphor is causality. If you use your analogy to make "new" information, than its reasoning, if you only use it based on the similarities you've already seen to convey understanding, then it's metaphor. The fact is, it's a very fine line to walk. When talking about entirely mental things like love, the line gets a little wider, since the thoughts involved affect the process itself to a great degree. However, when speaking about the defeat of an entity that will likely never know your thoughts, it's largely insignificant.
The fact is, it seems to me that you're moving from analogy to new facts. Since the RIAA are easily characterized as dinosaurs, anachronistic beings that are no longer necessary, you suggest tactics analogous to the those used against the actual lizards. Ignoring certain things like:
And so forth. Thinking in terms of the analogy will tend to make your mind overlook these kinds of things. It's confirmation bias, and it's inevitable. It's one of the fundamental problems with drawing premature analogies.
Reasoning by analogy is an extremely easy trap for human minds to fall into, and you may not even realize that you're doing it. Believe it or not, our thoughts become sloppy when we're not looking at them, even if the kinds of mistakes that we'd make seem entirely foolish to the conscious. But, then, its possible that you've arrogated the sum of your intellectual skill to your conscious mind.
Oh, incidentally, if you're wondering about the foe thing, it was some time in the past, and I don't really recall why.
This is a fallacy known as "reasoning by analogy". While, yes, an unfunded RIAA is a powerless RIAA, there very well may be other ways to effect the desired changes in the world. Ancient ecosystems have very different rules from the modern legal system, and you shouldn't expect them to behave in the same way.
Maybe next they can provide a $2000 prize for climbing Mount Everest?* *Note: must supply own climbing tools, tents, fuel, oxygen, clothes, and sherpas
Yeah, but there aren't any laws preventing my friends from duplicating their couches and giving me a copy if mine gets damaged (or if I just want a new one).
"Intellectual property" (the term itself is a tragic example of language being subverted by moneyed interests) has only tenuous similarities to real property, and almost none in a just society.
...this minor inconvenience is clearly offset by the massive benefits inherent in a new GUI skin.
Yes, but the crux of a pun is the double meaning. Upon seeing a flying car, the joke could be "It's high tech alright. Very high tech." But I really doubt that most people would associate an ordinary elevator with "technology". They've been around for over a century.
Perhaps we could be discussing the latest developments in steam locomotives, as well?
...but how is a high-capacity elevator high tech? I always assumed that being "high tech" involved overcoming some sort of engineering or scientific hurdle. A wrist computer, flying car, video cell phone, etc.
Is there any reason this thing couldn't've been built with 1950s elevator technology?I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't get it. Perhaps it makes reference to something that I, someone who doesn't watch TV, am not familiar with?
What progress? Bands nobody's heard of, trivia, and spammy-company articles? Oh, yeah, that's central to creating a useful encyclopedia.
And, of course, by 3 people, I assume you're referring to the thousand-plus administrators, and orders of magnitude more ordinary users who get along just fine with the rules?
I'd suggest that you try and view Wikipedia as a reader sometime, rather than an editor. I think they benefit a great deal more from the rules about citing sources.
I think you are having a hard time seeing that different sites are for different things. If Slashdot were about only moderating the comments from important people, then you'd be correct in your action. But it's not. Slashdot is a place that welcomes original insight and analysis. Wikipedia has a different set of rules, which provide a very different kind of atmosphere. Neither one would really give me the complete picture, and that's why I visit both. Slashdot is a social community designed to allow us to share insights and ideas. Wikipedia is a place to collect expert opinion to generate a coherent overview of the world.
Coming back to Wikipedia, where was it that it became the directory of things that are valuable? Notability and verifiability have nothing to do with how valuable something is. They can't; value is wholly subjective. They have to with whether someone can check their veracity in a reliable (which generally includes independent) source.
You seem to be taking these things very personally; you shouldn't. I'm not notable, and I happen to think I'm a great (if imperfect) person.
The meek get to inherit private lives where they are free to pursue (and to varying degrees obtain) their dreams, meet wonderful people, and do fantastic things. Is being included in some encyclopedia so very important to make one worthwhile?
Here's the funny thing: removal is one of the most important parts of making good content. Read it again: Removal is one of the most important parts of making good content. Ask any professional editor. People tend to get self-involved, and write things that don't need to be written. Things that aren't useful or informative. Wikipedia is filled with these things. Isn't is possible that writing the best encyclopedia possible might require removing the poor writing, and irrelevant trivia, left behind by people who don't know what they're talking about?
Wikipedia has people screaming at it both "be more accurate and relevant!" and "stop deleting things!". These are, to an extent, mutually exclusive goals. Inaccurate and irrelevant information sometimes needs to be removed.
No, you can't get good content by just deleting. But you can't get it by just adding, either. Wikipedia keeps getting added to, that means it needs to keep getting trimmed.
So, you'd like to live in the Wild West? Robberies, murders, disease. Sounds great huh? Well, it does to the overly-romanticizing imagination of someone who has the luxury of living in a time when those things are just story, not reality, and only wants to think of the advantages and none of the downsides. This is not to say that all systems must be authoritarian. But a balance needs to be struck. There need to be rules. Really, there do. Sometimes there are too many, sometimes there are not enough.
But, hey, wouldn't it be great if we could just do what we wanted, without caring about fact checking or consistency? Yeah! ...Until nine out of ten articles are about garage bands, hoaxes, and bored teenagers.
Wikipedia has a reasonable number of rules. Yes, it does require a learning curve. But, honestly, is there anything worth doing that doesn't? The community is usually pretty forgiving about well-intentioned mistakes.
You're wrong. Notability is a very important restriction. And it will very rarely remove something that is actually important. In order to meet notability, somebody reliable needs to write something about the subject. That's an incredibly small hurdle to jump over. And it there to prevent any idiot from spreading lies. What's to stop someone from setting up a website and just randomly making up falsehoods?
Furthermore, to claim that Wikipedia is of unlimited size is incorrect. Oh, technically, a vast number of articles could be created. But there are only so many good editors, and they need to spread across articles. If Wikipedia had 100 times as many articles, and the same number of active editors, each article would get massively less attention. That would result in an encyclopedia that is, overall, much lower quality.
And the articles that get deleted are generally of no real importance. Small organizations, neologisms, unimportant people. These aren't the kind of things that people are going to be looking for in an encyclopedia.
I assure you, a great many people on Wikipedia "grasp" your point of view; they just disagree with it.
Let me guess, your band's article got deleted?
Yeah, but since it's a civil case, I'm pretty sure it meets the "preponderance of evidence" requirement.
Well, yeah, she was pretty clearly guilty (e.g. wiping the hard drive after she got in trouble). That's not the issue. It's a question as to whether the ruinous damages were justified.
They weren't.
Yeah, but I figured that didn't have the same contemporary "pop"; The U.S. seems to have more of an energy problem than a mineral problem (it's my understanding that soaring metals prices are just a side-effect of an all-around plummeting dollar).
In Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (a spiritual branch from the Civilization series, which I consider better than any of the Civ proper games that followed it), thermal boreholes are terrain improvements that provide +6 energy and minerals (a great deal by the game's standards).
I feel our economy will be well served by the extra 6 energy.