They didn't show any naughty bits on Bender's Big Score, but there was an unprecedented amount of animated ass crack on-screen (some good, some... not so good).
Fry: Now that you mention it, I do have trouble breathing underwater sometimes. I'll take the gills. Shady organ dealer: Yes, gills. Then, uh, you don't need lungs anymore, is right? Fry: Can't imagine why I would. Shady organ dealer: Lie down on table. I take lungs now, gills come next week.
Participants subliminally viewing a Budweiser logo were able to crush roughly twice as many beer cans against their foreheads compared to those who viewed a Colt 45 logo. On the other hand, those viewing the Colt 45 logo were shown to be 65% more obnoxious when panhandling.
The nuclear cat is out of the bag, and as long as the US has a single nuke, they have no place to lecture others about non-proliferation. If you believe that nuclear weapons proliferation invariably decreases worldwide stability, then you should be all in favor of any nation, including the United States, attempting to dissuade other nations from trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
Re:alternative representation in modular arithmeti
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I'm not very picky. I celebrate for the entire month of March, and I do my engineering calculations accordingly.
Bush has a lot less leverage than he seems to think. The Democrats are at the very least torn morally about wiretapping, with the more leftward-leaning quite happy not to permit it at all. That's essentially the situation we have right now, with the previous legislation expired and with no immunity for telecoms. Bush can veto any related legislation he wants, but it won't force Congress's hand, because there will always be enough of his opponents willing to just not send anything to his desk.
What will end up happening here (they should put me on the McLaughlin Group!) is that Congress will either sit on its thumbs or send legislation to Bush that he'll just veto again, and January 2009 will roll around. There's a greater than 50% chance that the next President will be a Democrat (to my personal chagrin, but I'm being realistic here), and the telecoms, FBI, CIA, DoJ, etc. will have things much worse when it comes to wiretapping at that point.
I agree, inasmuch as any money invested in non-oil power and fuels (even sequestered-carbon coal technologies) is bound to have some significant returns to the public, given where oil prices are headed (some estimate $125/bbl oil in the near future). However, there's a big difference between research at the academic level and actual development. $2 billion may seem like a lot of money, but when you're actually building power plants, it doesn't go that far, while $1.27 million for a small university-based research team is quite a prize (and many groups wouldn't be able to spend tens of millions of dollars on pure research even if you offered it to them).
Still, we can only hope that these groups meet with quick success and that their work can be brought into development in the near future (not to mention the various other power sources that are much farther along).
Sesto says police can post comments as well, and a future version of the site will allow them to authenticate themselves to post rebuttals more prominently. How many police forces out there do you think will let their officers post rebuttals of their own accord?
Any comments posted by officers to a website such as this would only serve the needs of attorneys (both defense and personal injury) and their clients. That's why police departments have PR people to deflect questions and criticisms in the first place.
Yeah, I know that. But we honestly don't know whether this was an oversight/office action or something else (such as Jimbo being sloppy by deleting and recreating the article instead of replacing its content). We have no idea what was in place before, but we do know that there were legal threats being thrown around, and we do know that Jimbo took it upon himself to fix whatever was going on there by himself.
This is a fairly big hole in current practices on Wikipedia when it comes to oversight and office actions. The removal of defamatory uncited BLP claims is an important thing, but currently, these changes are handled in a way that is unduly hidden from the average editor. People who aren't in the highest echelons (or who, like me, aren't even admins) take a look at these sorts of things, try to piece together the smattering of evidence remaining, and conclude (sometimes wrongly) that there are some sort of shenanigans going on. The point of those actions isn't to hide the fact that an article was there, or even that it contained defamatory content. The object is to remove the actual defamatory content itself. Hiding related logs from the average editor only makes things look worse rather than better (the topic of TFA being a case in point).
The Democrats intend to try and get the ban on waterboarding through a veto, I believe. They failed on that yesterday in the House, 225-188. Of course, both sides are playing politics on the issue - the provision was part of a spending authorization bill, and so there are a bunch of other provisions (earmarks, for example) that muddy the issue and make it more complicated than just being a bill banning waterboarding. The statement by the Administration that they haven't used waterboarding for some time now also prevents any sense of urgency from forming around the issue.
Amusingly, one of the Republican talking points was a complaint that the Democrats were wasting their time on a doomed-to-fail veto override attempt instead of working on passing a renewal of the previously-expired wiretap legislation (honestly, the Democrats hold all the cards on that situation, since "no action" is much closer to their desired position than to that of the Republicans).
Of course, the funny thing is that they could just wait a year. All three of the remaining Presidential candidates are against waterboarding.
Lots of Wordpress blogs are getting hacked these days because people never update their software, and the favorite thing to do seems to be add invisible spam links for SEO purposes. Hacking other parts of the site for similar purposes wouldn't be surprising, either.
It's not the protection that's in question here, in my opinion, although most people would just write the article in a personal sandbox and copy the content into position when they were ready. It's the fact that the edit history now starts with Jimbo's edit in May 2006, when, by his edit comment, it's pretty obvious there was an article in place there before. Any normal editor (barring a need for actual oversight, meaning uncited defamatory BLP (biography of a living person) claims) would have just replaced the article's content with their own, but the way Jimbo did it means that all previous versions of the article are in the round file now, and the only way to recover such content would be to have archived it before Jimbo's edit.
So the question is, did the previous version of the article contain BLP issues that required an oversight action to remove them from the edit history? Or did it contain properly cited claims that merely cast Merkey in a bad light?
The sheer fact that Jimbo used "eerie powers", when replacing the article text with what he wrote, at least gives the impression of impropriety, whether or not anything wrong actually happened here. Yes, any admin could have deleted the article and started it anew, but most don't, because you're not supposed to do it that way. And Jimbo isn't just any admin - his edits carry additional weight, and therefore attract additional scrutiny.
On the Pakistan Olympics article, it looks like WikiProject Olympics created articles for every participating nation during every year. The article does, however, provide more than a mere "they were there" sentence - the table shown at the right indicates that they claimed one silver medal.
What should happen is that the text of the article should be expanded to reflect that, indicating (for example) who won the medal and what event they competed in.
The UAE foreign minister article needs citations, but those shouldn't be hard to come by since he's serving in a high-level government post. Unfortunately, a lot of articles on topics in countries where few people speak English don't get that much attention, since a lot of the citable media is in other languages.
As for the SkyOS article, the AfD looks like it's leaning toward keeping the article.
Verifiable reliable secondary sourcing isn't exactly a "policy du jour" on Wikipedia, and it's generally the best way to determine the notability of a subject. Easily the most frequently deleted types of articles are spam/advocacy articles, self-bios, and articles about garage bands. In all three cases, the articles are often placed in hopes of increasing the fame of the author/subject, and in all three cases, sources are rarely if ever provided, hence the articles' eventual removal.
If you have an article topic that is well-researched and well-sourced, by which I mean the subject has received attention in reliable mainstream media, then write the article and cite the sources. But just remember that you don't own that article, and it will be ultimately judged by the Wikipedia community to determine its suitability for inclusion (or modification, merging with another article, etc.).
Just think of the consequences if homeopathic remedies - which are supposed to work better with minuscule quantities of an "active" ingredient - get into our drinking water, too?
Exactly. Using their own servers is certainly an option for Wired, but if they really wanted the material to stay up on YouTube, sending a counter-notice would have been the appropriate response. In this case, at the very least, it could lead the actual copyright holder (if there is one) to file their own takedown notice, which (if they exist) they should have done in the first place.
Damn those convenience stores, supermarkets, gas stations, banks, schools, etc., for invading my privacy just so they can catch a few crooks. I mean, it's not like I'm on their property or anything.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't show any naughty bits on Bender's Big Score, but there was an unprecedented amount of animated ass crack on-screen (some good, some... not so good).
Fry: Now that you mention it, I do have trouble breathing underwater sometimes. I'll take the gills.
Shady organ dealer: Yes, gills. Then, uh, you don't need lungs anymore, is right?
Fry: Can't imagine why I would.
Shady organ dealer: Lie down on table. I take lungs now, gills come next week.
Participants subliminally viewing a Budweiser logo were able to crush roughly twice as many beer cans against their foreheads compared to those who viewed a Colt 45 logo. On the other hand, those viewing the Colt 45 logo were shown to be 65% more obnoxious when panhandling.
Personally, I'm not very picky. I celebrate for the entire month of March, and I do my engineering calculations accordingly.
Bush has a lot less leverage than he seems to think. The Democrats are at the very least torn morally about wiretapping, with the more leftward-leaning quite happy not to permit it at all. That's essentially the situation we have right now, with the previous legislation expired and with no immunity for telecoms. Bush can veto any related legislation he wants, but it won't force Congress's hand, because there will always be enough of his opponents willing to just not send anything to his desk.
What will end up happening here (they should put me on the McLaughlin Group!) is that Congress will either sit on its thumbs or send legislation to Bush that he'll just veto again, and January 2009 will roll around. There's a greater than 50% chance that the next President will be a Democrat (to my personal chagrin, but I'm being realistic here), and the telecoms, FBI, CIA, DoJ, etc. will have things much worse when it comes to wiretapping at that point.
I agree, inasmuch as any money invested in non-oil power and fuels (even sequestered-carbon coal technologies) is bound to have some significant returns to the public, given where oil prices are headed (some estimate $125/bbl oil in the near future). However, there's a big difference between research at the academic level and actual development. $2 billion may seem like a lot of money, but when you're actually building power plants, it doesn't go that far, while $1.27 million for a small university-based research team is quite a prize (and many groups wouldn't be able to spend tens of millions of dollars on pure research even if you offered it to them).
Still, we can only hope that these groups meet with quick success and that their work can be brought into development in the near future (not to mention the various other power sources that are much farther along).
Any comments posted by officers to a website such as this would only serve the needs of attorneys (both defense and personal injury) and their clients. That's why police departments have PR people to deflect questions and criticisms in the first place.
...how many gigaquads is that?
Improper interpretations of AfD results are what deletion review (or any of a few available precursor actions) is for.
Yeah, I know that. But we honestly don't know whether this was an oversight/office action or something else (such as Jimbo being sloppy by deleting and recreating the article instead of replacing its content). We have no idea what was in place before, but we do know that there were legal threats being thrown around, and we do know that Jimbo took it upon himself to fix whatever was going on there by himself.
This is a fairly big hole in current practices on Wikipedia when it comes to oversight and office actions. The removal of defamatory uncited BLP claims is an important thing, but currently, these changes are handled in a way that is unduly hidden from the average editor. People who aren't in the highest echelons (or who, like me, aren't even admins) take a look at these sorts of things, try to piece together the smattering of evidence remaining, and conclude (sometimes wrongly) that there are some sort of shenanigans going on. The point of those actions isn't to hide the fact that an article was there, or even that it contained defamatory content. The object is to remove the actual defamatory content itself. Hiding related logs from the average editor only makes things look worse rather than better (the topic of TFA being a case in point).
Amusingly, one of the Republican talking points was a complaint that the Democrats were wasting their time on a doomed-to-fail veto override attempt instead of working on passing a renewal of the previously-expired wiretap legislation (honestly, the Democrats hold all the cards on that situation, since "no action" is much closer to their desired position than to that of the Republicans).
Of course, the funny thing is that they could just wait a year. All three of the remaining Presidential candidates are against waterboarding.
Lots of Wordpress blogs are getting hacked these days because people never update their software, and the favorite thing to do seems to be add invisible spam links for SEO purposes. Hacking other parts of the site for similar purposes wouldn't be surprising, either.
It's not the protection that's in question here, in my opinion, although most people would just write the article in a personal sandbox and copy the content into position when they were ready. It's the fact that the edit history now starts with Jimbo's edit in May 2006, when, by his edit comment, it's pretty obvious there was an article in place there before. Any normal editor (barring a need for actual oversight, meaning uncited defamatory BLP (biography of a living person) claims) would have just replaced the article's content with their own, but the way Jimbo did it means that all previous versions of the article are in the round file now, and the only way to recover such content would be to have archived it before Jimbo's edit.
So the question is, did the previous version of the article contain BLP issues that required an oversight action to remove them from the edit history? Or did it contain properly cited claims that merely cast Merkey in a bad light?
The sheer fact that Jimbo used "eerie powers", when replacing the article text with what he wrote, at least gives the impression of impropriety, whether or not anything wrong actually happened here. Yes, any admin could have deleted the article and started it anew, but most don't, because you're not supposed to do it that way. And Jimbo isn't just any admin - his edits carry additional weight, and therefore attract additional scrutiny.
On the Pakistan Olympics article, it looks like WikiProject Olympics created articles for every participating nation during every year. The article does, however, provide more than a mere "they were there" sentence - the table shown at the right indicates that they claimed one silver medal.
What should happen is that the text of the article should be expanded to reflect that, indicating (for example) who won the medal and what event they competed in.
The UAE foreign minister article needs citations, but those shouldn't be hard to come by since he's serving in a high-level government post. Unfortunately, a lot of articles on topics in countries where few people speak English don't get that much attention, since a lot of the citable media is in other languages.
As for the SkyOS article, the AfD looks like it's leaning toward keeping the article.
Verifiable reliable secondary sourcing isn't exactly a "policy du jour" on Wikipedia, and it's generally the best way to determine the notability of a subject. Easily the most frequently deleted types of articles are spam/advocacy articles, self-bios, and articles about garage bands. In all three cases, the articles are often placed in hopes of increasing the fame of the author/subject, and in all three cases, sources are rarely if ever provided, hence the articles' eventual removal.
If you have an article topic that is well-researched and well-sourced, by which I mean the subject has received attention in reliable mainstream media, then write the article and cite the sources. But just remember that you don't own that article, and it will be ultimately judged by the Wikipedia community to determine its suitability for inclusion (or modification, merging with another article, etc.).
Just think of the consequences if homeopathic remedies - which are supposed to work better with minuscule quantities of an "active" ingredient - get into our drinking water, too?
Exactly. Using their own servers is certainly an option for Wired, but if they really wanted the material to stay up on YouTube, sending a counter-notice would have been the appropriate response. In this case, at the very least, it could lead the actual copyright holder (if there is one) to file their own takedown notice, which (if they exist) they should have done in the first place.
School vouchers for everyone!
Damn those convenience stores, supermarkets, gas stations, banks, schools, etc., for invading my privacy just so they can catch a few crooks. I mean, it's not like I'm on their property or anything.
The text of the rules could be copyrighted, but the ideas behind them could only qualify for patent protection.
In this particular case, Mattel may have reason for a trademark infringement complaint as well.
Step 1: Assume that any e-mail you get is a phishing attempt.
Step 2: There's no step 2. There's no step 2!
It's not exactly rocket science.
Yahoo!!! Sadly, it doesn't even appear on the first page on Yahoo!. Shenanigans, perhaps?