IMHO, proprietary OSes and devices like those produced by M$ and Apple keep shifting towards being pure entertainment platforms. Just look at the iPad: there gotta be like thousands of games for it already, while the interface and the form factor effectively prevent the user from doing any serious work. At the same time, free and open-source software already emerged as the leader when it comes to science, and is poised to do the same for productivity. If the new Windoze is a glorified blend of TV and game console, then their choice to streamline the Web browser makes total sense. I am more surprised by their puny attempts to win back the server market.
Let's put it this way: if you were going to spend a few hundred million of your own dollars, wouldn't you want some protection against some yahoo coming along, copying your work, and selling it for less?
But there is no shortage of some protection. Trade secrets, first mover advantage, and government subsidies are very effective in rewarding people and companies that innovate. Subsidizing research out of taxes, in particular, should be several times more effective. In drug research, for example, we end up paying a patent "tax" which covers research and testing, but also marketing (which is often more expensive), and then some more to fill the upper management pockets. The alternative is to pay for the research directly, and then let generic drug manufacturers fight each other. Some patent defenders like pretending that there is no other way to reward inventors, but that's clearly bullshit. Most of them also believe that the patent regime improves the rate of innovation, but this assertion has been challenged many times by economists, and in fields like software is known to be flatly false; and the ethical problems which arise in fields like biology and medicine are daunting.
I find it much harder to take you seriously if you believe that putting in "whine whine whine" does something positive for you. If you argue like that on Wikipedia,
Do I? (Go and see, it's the same nick.) And if I do, how does it invalidate my point here on Slashdot? My point was that the OP was whining, that the editing process is not all unicorns and roses, that he needed to grow some hair on his chest, fill out a few forms, and go back to improving Wikipedia.
If you start out with describing the other person in terms of "whine whine whine", it really doesn't matter what you say after that
I wasn't describing a person, I was describing the tone of a single post. And why cannot I point out that someone is whining? And even if I am wrong, why does that automatically invalidate everything else I say?
I use X over ssh daily for thunderbird, but I'll be first to point out that it is overrated. We have today a vastly superior protocol for GUI over the net: HTTPS. And in my mind, it is up to application developers to give us remote access, the way transmission does it. I am glad that X and Wayland cooperate so smoothly, but I am also glad that we are finally leaving X behind.
Because it improves the state of everyone's knowledge. Sure, editing Wikipedia is harder than it used to be, but it's not because of the community or the policy. It is because the main body of work is complete, the standards are higher, and there is more scrutiny. There is a way to keep Wikipedia (or any community project of a similar size) organized, fair, and free from vandalism, and it's a bureaucratic process. You and others who whined here over the past few years always have the same story: your edits got reverted, so you lost interest and quit. That's perfectly fine and you are a hero in my book until there is an implication that "they don't need you as an editor". They do, but you just don't seem to understand what an editor is supposed to do. It sounds like you expected to edit articles in a vacuum, which is not realistic. In a project this large, you need to be a bureaucrat as well, which boils down to resolving conflicts through discussion and filling out official forms. Really, there is no other way to do it. It's an overhead, but frankly, it's nothing compared with the research that goes into an article, so you should definitely give it another go. With just a bit of patience and a consistent effort, you should be able to bulldoze over jerkoffs who try to game the system and get your edits the exposure they deserve. You will succeed every time, because your edits are good, the software keeps a complete record, and moderators do read the history.
My criticism about no links provided is also valid and goes hand to hand with what I am saying above. You guys so obviously don't care about your own contribution or the community review process, you didn't bookmark a single instance of alleged abuse. And you want us to believe you cared before? I am not buying it.
what matters here is that it is types like you which have made Wikipedia shit for everyone else.
Yeah, my occasional fixing of typos and uploading of pictures really turned people away. I really made a splash there. Go, check it out, it's the same nick. You see, when I want to troll, I come to Slashdot, and when I want to be helpful, I head to Wikipedia. People who whined about Wikipedia's hostility today probably do it the other way around. Sure, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and Slashdot is an uncensored, opt-in moderated pseudo-news board with illiterate "editors" and a strong GNAA presense, but hey, don't let these basic facts get to you. Keep defending jerkoffs who badmouth Wikipedia, but won't give us a single link to a documented instance of abuse.
No they can't. They never do. All they can do is bitch and whine.
I edit Wikipedia not a lot, but regularly. In a few instances I got reverted, and every time I came to agree with the editor's decision. While my experience is anecdotal, here is why I think all of these whiners are full of crap: if a single one of my good edits got reverted I would probably make a stink there and then. Granted, not everyone is as anal as me in this respect, but I would have at least bookmarked the page where they did this to me and made them RUE the day they saw my nick. How hard can this be? And who wouldn't enjoy that, even if a little bit? "Here, this is an excellent edit of mine that got reverted/stolen. Here is the name of the SOB who did it." When people complain about "the general air of hostility" or "all their edits reverted" without providing a single link, I have no choice but to presume one of the following: (from unlucky to incompetent to malicious)
- They are too thin-skinned for a public editing process: they couldn't hang on WIkipedia because they can't hang anywhere with just a bit of public scrutiny.
- They never really cared about editing Wikipedia, and so after their crappy edits got reverted, they threw away their nicks.
- Their edits weren't as good as they say, or the editors weren't as dickish as they say, or there was a legitimate grievance, but it got resolved in a fair way. So obviously they can't link to it, on pain of looking like fools.
- Their edits sucked and they know it.
- They got into a flame war for no reason and now have fun trolling with a made up story.
- They work for a PR firm that works for Britannica.
Neither of the above is the fault of Wikipedia or its policies.
I find it hilarious that people who complain about systemic editorial abuse on Wikipedia won't bother to provide even a single link to a recorded instance.
Hey I didn't mean to say you did anything wrong. If anything, I was trying to encourage you to ignore the horseplay and go back to improving Wikipedia whenever you see the need and have an opportunity.
Some people like credit for their work. Instead he kept seeing people coming in and 'stealing' his work. Then on top of it just reverting him 'just cause'.
But he did get credit for his work. The edit history clearly shows who actually improved that article and who is a stealing douchebag. The parent's complaints are shallow. The article got better thanks to him, and there is a record of it. What else did he expect?
Did you miss the rest of my post? Yes, I believe the parent was whining. And I explained why I thought he was whining: the article he edited became better, but that wasn't enough for him. But you are in the same camp, aren't you? You don't really care if someone points out that there is nothing major wrong with the editing process, and your complaints about it are stemming from your undue AND unrealistic expectation of fame and recognition every time you fix a paragraph on a site edited by millions of people.
It all started when I dared to step into the turf of something one of the "higher ups" considered his. An edit of me was reverted. Not just something trivial that begs for a "citation needed", it was a well worded and sourced piece of information. The reason was that it was "not enough on topic". Ok, I see that differently, but so be it. Not like I have to have everything I write published.
What bugged me was that the day after, my entry was, almost verbatim, in there again. This time under the name of the person who thought it's "offtopic" only one day earlier. But ok, so be it, some people need it for their ego to be the "only authority" on some subject.
Whine whine whine... It is hard to take you and anyone else seriously unless you link to Wikipedia. Citation needed.
But even if what you say is entirely true, why exactly are you so mad? Anyone can go through the history and see that you were the one who wrote the original version, and the following edit was done by a self-promoting jackass. As Magic Johnson wisely said: "Don't worry. Sooner or later, people like that are exposed as the frauds they are." When I edit Wikipedia, I don't expect any recognition. I just hope that what I write there will be useful to many people thirsty for knowledge. Let it go, let the editors play their fame-game. They don't get paid, and most of the time it's harmless, so throw them a bone. And when it's not, when it comes at the cost of the article quality, punish them. One day your stalker will slip up, and you will get an opportunity to file a Web-form and drag him through the dirt.
I agree that it is not a crisis. One would expect that at some point, the bulk of the work will be done. Peak knowledge, if you will. It is much easier to write a Wikipedia article about the process of galaxy formation than to develop a corresponding scientific theory, so I would expect us to catch up to our current state of knowledge. Subjectively speaking, most of the articles are already mostly written. At this point, it is up to specialists in narrow fields to continue improving Wikipedia and to keep it up to date. Speaking as one of them, this is a perfect task for people who work in higher education.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, proprietary OSes and devices like those produced by M$ and Apple keep shifting towards being pure entertainment platforms. Just look at the iPad: there gotta be like thousands of games for it already, while the interface and the form factor effectively prevent the user from doing any serious work. At the same time, free and open-source software already emerged as the leader when it comes to science, and is poised to do the same for productivity. If the new Windoze is a glorified blend of TV and game console, then their choice to streamline the Web browser makes total sense. I am more surprised by their puny attempts to win back the server market.
Ever have a book spy on you?
I am skeptical that manufacturers want to play the patent game. On average, no one wins in that game but patent trolls and lawyers.
Also, Falling is the opposite of Springing.
[nt]
Let's put it this way: if you were going to spend a few hundred million of your own dollars, wouldn't you want some protection against some yahoo coming along, copying your work, and selling it for less?
But there is no shortage of some protection. Trade secrets, first mover advantage, and government subsidies are very effective in rewarding people and companies that innovate. Subsidizing research out of taxes, in particular, should be several times more effective. In drug research, for example, we end up paying a patent "tax" which covers research and testing, but also marketing (which is often more expensive), and then some more to fill the upper management pockets. The alternative is to pay for the research directly, and then let generic drug manufacturers fight each other. Some patent defenders like pretending that there is no other way to reward inventors, but that's clearly bullshit. Most of them also believe that the patent regime improves the rate of innovation, but this assertion has been challenged many times by economists, and in fields like software is known to be flatly false; and the ethical problems which arise in fields like biology and medicine are daunting.
Dude, are you seriously?
I find it much harder to take you seriously if you believe that putting in "whine whine whine" does something positive for you. If you argue like that on Wikipedia,
Do I? (Go and see, it's the same nick.) And if I do, how does it invalidate my point here on Slashdot? My point was that the OP was whining, that the editing process is not all unicorns and roses, that he needed to grow some hair on his chest, fill out a few forms, and go back to improving Wikipedia.
If you start out with describing the other person in terms of "whine whine whine", it really doesn't matter what you say after that
I wasn't describing a person, I was describing the tone of a single post. And why cannot I point out that someone is whining? And even if I am wrong, why does that automatically invalidate everything else I say?
I use X over ssh daily for thunderbird, but I'll be first to point out that it is overrated. We have today a vastly superior protocol for GUI over the net: HTTPS. And in my mind, it is up to application developers to give us remote access, the way transmission does it. I am glad that X and Wayland cooperate so smoothly, but I am also glad that we are finally leaving X behind.
Because it improves the state of everyone's knowledge. Sure, editing Wikipedia is harder than it used to be, but it's not because of the community or the policy. It is because the main body of work is complete, the standards are higher, and there is more scrutiny. There is a way to keep Wikipedia (or any community project of a similar size) organized, fair, and free from vandalism, and it's a bureaucratic process. You and others who whined here over the past few years always have the same story: your edits got reverted, so you lost interest and quit. That's perfectly fine and you are a hero in my book until there is an implication that "they don't need you as an editor". They do, but you just don't seem to understand what an editor is supposed to do. It sounds like you expected to edit articles in a vacuum, which is not realistic. In a project this large, you need to be a bureaucrat as well, which boils down to resolving conflicts through discussion and filling out official forms. Really, there is no other way to do it. It's an overhead, but frankly, it's nothing compared with the research that goes into an article, so you should definitely give it another go. With just a bit of patience and a consistent effort, you should be able to bulldoze over jerkoffs who try to game the system and get your edits the exposure they deserve. You will succeed every time, because your edits are good, the software keeps a complete record, and moderators do read the history.
My criticism about no links provided is also valid and goes hand to hand with what I am saying above. You guys so obviously don't care about your own contribution or the community review process, you didn't bookmark a single instance of alleged abuse. And you want us to believe you cared before? I am not buying it.
Yeah it sounds like you are the 2nd entry from the top.
what matters here is that it is types like you which have made Wikipedia shit for everyone else.
Yeah, my occasional fixing of typos and uploading of pictures really turned people away. I really made a splash there. Go, check it out, it's the same nick. You see, when I want to troll, I come to Slashdot, and when I want to be helpful, I head to Wikipedia. People who whined about Wikipedia's hostility today probably do it the other way around. Sure, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and Slashdot is an uncensored, opt-in moderated pseudo-news board with illiterate "editors" and a strong GNAA presense, but hey, don't let these basic facts get to you. Keep defending jerkoffs who badmouth Wikipedia, but won't give us a single link to a documented instance of abuse.
No they can't. They never do. All they can do is bitch and whine.
I edit Wikipedia not a lot, but regularly. In a few instances I got reverted, and every time I came to agree with the editor's decision. While my experience is anecdotal, here is why I think all of these whiners are full of crap: if a single one of my good edits got reverted I would probably make a stink there and then. Granted, not everyone is as anal as me in this respect, but I would have at least bookmarked the page where they did this to me and made them RUE the day they saw my nick. How hard can this be? And who wouldn't enjoy that, even if a little bit? "Here, this is an excellent edit of mine that got reverted/stolen. Here is the name of the SOB who did it." When people complain about "the general air of hostility" or "all their edits reverted" without providing a single link, I have no choice but to presume one of the following: (from unlucky to incompetent to malicious)
- They are too thin-skinned for a public editing process: they couldn't hang on WIkipedia because they can't hang anywhere with just a bit of public scrutiny.
- They never really cared about editing Wikipedia, and so after their crappy edits got reverted, they threw away their nicks.
- Their edits weren't as good as they say, or the editors weren't as dickish as they say, or there was a legitimate grievance, but it got resolved in a fair way. So obviously they can't link to it, on pain of looking like fools.
- Their edits sucked and they know it.
- They got into a flame war for no reason and now have fun trolling with a made up story.
- They work for a PR firm that works for Britannica.
Neither of the above is the fault of Wikipedia or its policies.
And you, sir, judging by your choice of words, must be a grizzled veteran.
You are new here, ain't you?
I find it hilarious that people who complain about systemic editorial abuse on Wikipedia won't bother to provide even a single link to a recorded instance.
Hey I didn't mean to say you did anything wrong. If anything, I was trying to encourage you to ignore the horseplay and go back to improving Wikipedia whenever you see the need and have an opportunity.
So credit is not enough for you? You DO expect fame and recognition by masses when editing Wikipedia? You seriously don't see a problem with that?
Some people like credit for their work. Instead he kept seeing people coming in and 'stealing' his work. Then on top of it just reverting him 'just cause'.
But he did get credit for his work. The edit history clearly shows who actually improved that article and who is a stealing douchebag. The parent's complaints are shallow. The article got better thanks to him, and there is a record of it. What else did he expect?
Did you miss the rest of my post? Yes, I believe the parent was whining. And I explained why I thought he was whining: the article he edited became better, but that wasn't enough for him. But you are in the same camp, aren't you? You don't really care if someone points out that there is nothing major wrong with the editing process, and your complaints about it are stemming from your undue AND unrealistic expectation of fame and recognition every time you fix a paragraph on a site edited by millions of people.
It all started when I dared to step into the turf of something one of the "higher ups" considered his. An edit of me was reverted. Not just something trivial that begs for a "citation needed", it was a well worded and sourced piece of information. The reason was that it was "not enough on topic". Ok, I see that differently, but so be it. Not like I have to have everything I write published.
What bugged me was that the day after, my entry was, almost verbatim, in there again. This time under the name of the person who thought it's "offtopic" only one day earlier. But ok, so be it, some people need it for their ego to be the "only authority" on some subject.
Whine whine whine... It is hard to take you and anyone else seriously unless you link to Wikipedia. Citation needed.
But even if what you say is entirely true, why exactly are you so mad? Anyone can go through the history and see that you were the one who wrote the original version, and the following edit was done by a self-promoting jackass. As Magic Johnson wisely said: "Don't worry. Sooner or later, people like that are exposed as the frauds they are." When I edit Wikipedia, I don't expect any recognition. I just hope that what I write there will be useful to many people thirsty for knowledge. Let it go, let the editors play their fame-game. They don't get paid, and most of the time it's harmless, so throw them a bone. And when it's not, when it comes at the cost of the article quality, punish them. One day your stalker will slip up, and you will get an opportunity to file a Web-form and drag him through the dirt.
I agree that it is not a crisis. One would expect that at some point, the bulk of the work will be done. Peak knowledge, if you will. It is much easier to write a Wikipedia article about the process of galaxy formation than to develop a corresponding scientific theory, so I would expect us to catch up to our current state of knowledge. Subjectively speaking, most of the articles are already mostly written. At this point, it is up to specialists in narrow fields to continue improving Wikipedia and to keep it up to date. Speaking as one of them, this is a perfect task for people who work in higher education.
should be hit over the head with a hammer. Repeatedly.
Please cease and desist. You are referring to a patented business method.
All of your questions about this 'smart dust' (and more!) were answered by Stanislaw Lem in his Peace on Earth.
OT: CmdrTaco, seriously, it's 2011. A "geek" board without Unicode support? We can't even spell internationally known names correctly.
This is Democracy inaction
There, fixed it for you.
Git this dude some mod points already.