I've uploaded quite a lot of images, it just takes a few minutes of research to understand which license they fit under, to state that, and to use the correct tagging.
Except it appears that every year, the rules for what constitutes {{fairuse}} on English Wikipedia become stricter, and swaths of images get speedied. Some people who edit Wikipedia fear that it will become Wikipedia policy to have zero images in articles about major motion pictures.
Could be. The guy was making a general statement, a wide sweeping claim about all of wikipedia, and I have found that not to be true for the areas I contribute in. Hence my comment.
My direct personal (and recent) experience differs from that which you are describing.
You must not edit a lot of articles whose subject is a non-free copyrighted work.
You're right, I don't. I stick more to scientific and factual things rather than articles on books, movies, etc. Not bashing you, don't get me wrong, just not my thing. My point was that the guy was saying the rules change all the time, and maybe in some areas they do, but in many areas they do not. Either way, that's more a function of the law and it being interpreted and/or tested, as opposed to any arbitrary decision on some evil moderator's part or something.
3000 Americans died from terrorism in this entire young century. Meanwhile, 40,000 Americans died in auto crashes last year alone. I vote we use some of the "homeland security" money on guard rails.
Right, because even though we were promised followup events that "will dwarf 9/11" and they haven't happened, _obviously_ that money has all been wasted, is that it? As far as the auto crashes...I've been an EMT for a dozen years or so. I've never been to a fatal accident where the person who died was wearing a seatbelt. Not once. Spend all you want but when some idiot doesn't even take advantage of the basic safety equipment they've already been provided in their vehicle, there's no helping them.
Wikipedia treats the users pretty anonymous. So whether you get points or not I don't see any real gain. The vandalism sucks but the image licensing is the real problem. You can never upload an image to satisfy their licensing scheme. I disagree - I've uploaded quite a lot of images, it just takes a few minutes of research to understand which license they fit under, to state that, and to use the correct tagging.
They change the fair use licensing every year and they send some bot over to undo everything you ever did. It's annoying. Practically anything that is not a screen shot gets challenged. My direct personal (and recent) experience differs from that which you are describing.
Last thing I need is another admin to challenge my edits. I think perhaps that wikis are not for you, then; that's kind of the whole point, that people fix problems and improve articles.
I'm not sure how this differs from what you're talking about, functionally?
I'm pretty sure what the GP was asking for was the ability to plaster a link to their site on every page that they edit or significantly contribute to. I think this is a terrible idea for a couple reasons - mainly, it's an unrelated link, and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia article about something else. Allowing the authors of pages to include links to their blogs/affiliate sites/etc creates more unnecessary noise. Ah. I was thinking the motivation was altruistic but wanting to get some sort of recognition for themselves, which as we both seem to be saying, exists but doesn't meet his goals.
Second, it's a volunteer project. Nobody else expects to get paid, but for some reason this person is basically saying that they would only be willing to contribute if it would make them money. There are plenty of people willing to contribute to free encyclopedias for nothing but the satisfaction of having done so - if some people expect more compensation than that - it's probably not the pastime for them. Good point. I guess I'd rather have someone contributing for the love of the project, than someone who sees themselves as entitled to something for doing so. I guess I was being too...what's the word, trusting? in my interpretation of the parent post's question. On rereading it, I can see that what you're saying makes more sense as an interpretation.
So yeah. Spammy links don't belong in wikipedia, I've removed them as I've come across them, and I don't have a problem with that. Far as the original project that the article is about, well, I think that's a lot more effort than just fixing problems in wikipedia, which is already there, well established, and just needs continual tuning. As opposed to a complete rewrite (or write).
I think this very interesting article has a very good point when it says that it would be nice if contributers were allowed to recieve credit for their work. Especially if this credit would result in being allowed to have a link from your name like it does here on/. (the part with the link is my addition to what the article talks about) Maybe I'm missing something - but, I edit wikipedia articles with my real name, so my name is linked to my work. I suppose I could even put a link to my homepage in my user: page on wikipedia if I wanted to. I'm not sure how this differs from what you're talking about, functionally?
Right now I do not live from my web pages, I don't know if I want to, but with my present job status those returning visitors I do have on my webpage and blog are quite valuable to me as they might be the start of what I may have to turn to make a living, at least for a time, if no geophysics work shows up here soon. No reason you couldn't put a "Check out my contributions to wikipedia, at (this link)" on your own pages. That's more likely to work for you anyway, rather than trying to get people to chase you down from the other direction.
Let me re-phrase:Since it is not 100% accurate [i]compared with what their current accuracy standards are.[/i]Regardless, this thing is a piece of crap.They don't [i]know[/i] their market...they only think they do.If they acctually asked a professional in any field they thought this would be useful, they'd have been laughed at.
Really. So you understand the difference between an estimate and the craftsman doing the actual work then, right? The estimator's job is to be close enough that they come out just about right. Overages, OR underages, are bad. Yet, it's an _estimate_. This is a tool to get reasonable accuracy (so it's claimed) for doing estimates. No finish carpenter worth employing would use these measurements as a cutlist, that's not what it's for. This is so they can say "OK, homeowner, that's 527 square feet of siding, 240 feet of soffit and facia, 220 feet of gutter, and 12 square of shingles, so your cost estimate for materials is blah". Obviously nobody is going to go and cut the siding to 17' 4-11/16" based on something like this.
Apple might not have had DLL hell, but they had an extension hell with pre-OS X that, according to Mac people that used it that long ago, was a pain. This was fixed with OS X.
Right, and that's a very good point. Rather than continue to support a fundamentally broken design for eternity, Apple said, in effect, "OK, new OS entirely, lots of old stuff just plain Will Not Work." MS has been reluctant to do that, maybe up to and including Vista. I really, really think they need to draw a line and say "Anything OS-ish before _here_, sorry, not gonna work, period" so they can stop including fundamental design flaws for the sake of staying backwards compatible with 5 or 10 year old stuff. It's funny - I can't read files from Word 95 on an XP box, but they try to make executables from then work. What's more likely to be needed? Seems to me, let the office formats be backward compatible, no problem there, but dump the OS compatibility attempts that make the new one suck for the same reasons the old one sucked. Now, let me be completely clear - I have not, and quite likely never will, buy vista. So I'm saying this as an already-decided outsider. I just don't see what needs I have that it would meet.
OK couple things about his statements that jumped out at me from reading TFA:
The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.
Um, Bill, Apple hasn't had to fix DLL hell, and processes run by a user blowing away system things, because they didn't build those problems in in the first place. They didn't have to block open ports with vulnerable services listening on the by default, because they're not _open_ by default. And so on. Next?
Question: How about the implication that you need surgery to upgrade?
Well, certainly we've done a better job letting you upgrade on the hardware than our competitors have done.
How so, Bill? What are the hardware requirements for your new OS? How many 5 year old boxes, or even 3 year old boxes, meet that?
You can choose to buy a new machine, or you can choose to do an upgrade. And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say? Does honesty matter in these things, or if you're really cool, that means you get to be a lying person whenever you feel like it? There's not even the slightest shred of truth to it.
So Bill is saying, that there's no truth to the statement that you need to make hardware changes if you want to upgrade to vista. NO truth to it.
Tell that to my inlaws; they'll need a new box entirely.
I mean, it's fascinating, maybe we shouldn't have showed so publicly the stuff we were doing, because we knew how long the new security base was going to take us to get done. Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
OK Bill, show me the figures. Show me a total exploit on OSX. Now, show me 365 of them for each year it's been out. Back up your figures or be shown to be the liar you are.
I just can't keep going through this, I think that one says it all about the guy's outright lies, and/or complete lack of clue. So, windows fanbois, is he lying, or is he clueless?
'Cause I've been traveling. Greetings from O'Hare's B concourse.
Ugh. Sorry to hear that. Nothing about O'Hare is fun.
"I'm thinking it's because, well, there isn't an easy way to do it. In fact, I can't think of a _hard_ way to do it. Maybe an SUID script to open it as root, but then you have the display thing to deal with. Hm... more likely he was just talking out his arse."
I think I was too delicate in making my point. See my reference to the kitty cat in my original post. Yeah, it's highly unlikely that pussy would dance across the keys in a manner to make this happen, but the point is that it's about as likely, practically speaking, that some audio playing over my speakers would cause a similar fate to befall a Vista installation.
I see your point, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with it. If MS as truly trusted voice control with, effectively, root access, then it's a different layer of trust and vulnerability.
I think my post was taken as flamebait or an OSX vs. Windows sort of thing. That was not the intention -- I use both. The point is that it's fun to have a laugh at Microsoft's expense.
On this, we agree. But I really think that getting a root shell on OSX from visiting a remote website is a hell of a lot less likely. The obvious solution is to not automatically grant permission to execute voice commands as admin, but that itself leads to abuses and obvious DOS mechanisms. It's really just another case of MS wanting a feature regardless of the implications, and not thinking it through or not caring.
"OSX's easy access to a shell prompt with root access"
Really? How do I get a shell prompt on a Mac with root access without typing my password? I notice he hasn't responded to this. I'm thinking it's because, well, there isn't an easy way to do it. In fact, I can't think of a _hard_ way to do it. Maybe an SUID script to open it as root, but then you have the display thing to deal with. Hm... more likely he was just talking out his arse.
I asked for a response, but with a specific request: please don't just say "don't bid $5,000 if you don't think it is worth it"
Yes, I saw your post. Skimmed over it even.
your short response, like a broken record: if you say an item is worth 50 bucks, don't bid 100 bucks for it and then complain about it
Right. Which was my initial point - the original post stated that he was upset that something worth 50 dollars, he had paid 95 for because he bid 100. I suggested that if, to him, it's worth 50 dollars, he should only _BID_ 50 dollars. I _UNDERSTAND_ that the only reason it went up to 95 (in his mind) is because of a shill. Thing is, an item is worth to you what it's worth to you, regardless of the number and motivations of other bidders. Pick that number and bid it. Another item just like it will come along soon enough.
You dodged my entire post and only came back with your same old broken-record statement. I attempted to present what I thought was a good scenario for discussion (artwork up for auction), but you cannot discuss it? No, it's more of a "you're not worth the effort". I suppose if you were posting as other than AC, and lost some of the abusive snide commentary, I'd consider it. Feel free to claim victory or something on the aspect of the post which I stated from the start that I wasn't addressing. Bye bye, you win. Whatever. You've gone from missing my point, to intentionally missing my point in an abusive way.
Thank you for showing that you are completely incapable of understanding that a person can address one part of a post, and say they're specifically NOT addressing the other part of the post. My point was, and is, if you say an item is worth 50 bucks, don't bid 100 bucks for it and then complain about it. But I suppose, if you feel the need to keep going on and on and on about the aspect I specifically said I wasn't commenting on, go right ahead.
Not sure how you got to +4 with that, but the Apple section is like that. I'd say that if you're replying to me (same person posting third time now), you are obligated to take into consideration how the thread has gotten to where it has, in order to understand what I was trying to say. But maybe that's just me. Give me a break. You post as AC, and you're taking me to task for not knowing which of the AC posts are from you, and that I haven't seen what other points you've been making? HELLO?
You're either saying Macs are better for media or you're not. For that is what this thread is about. Indeed. In my experience, my Mac is easier to use for photos and music, than my PCs. But, you see, I'm not tied to a specific way of doing something; I get into iWhatever, and hey look, OK, hadn't thought of doing it that way before, I see...OK I'll try it. I don't try to force iWhatever to act like MS WhateverElse, I use it for what it is, and - guess what? There's some pretty well thought out stuff there. The consistent look and feel, predictable UI, and common methods across iWhatever to iWhateverelse are, to me, valuable.
If you think those are equivalent to iLife apps, it shows that you just haven't spent enough (or maybe any) time using both.
Actually I had OS X installed on my PC for a while, until I got really bored with it. (shrug) fair enough.
What, for instance, are you claiming IrfanView is equivalent to? And are you _really_ saying that WMP is equivalent to iTunes? Yeah, they both play music. But, if that's your test, then a Mercedes is equivalant to a Kia.
I was excited about being able to use iPhoto, after hearing great things about it. But I found its photo management options poor.
Maybe I'm using it wrong, but - _what_ photo management are you trying to do? Categorize into albums & books? Got that. Sort by roll, or by date? Got that. Sort by filname or whatever metadata? Got that. Not sure what else I'd need. Maybe this is just a "your workflow habits would change going to a different tool", but that's hardly specific to iPhoto.
Picasa's or ACDSee's are better. And IrfanView is a better quick browser and slideshow viewer, with greater basic photo editing options than iPhoto. Everything about iPhoto is better in freeware or cheap Windows apps. Well, I guess that's debatable. I'd rather have one app that does 90% of what I want, and, when I want to go outside, just right click on "edit with -> photoshop" to do the rest. Not sure what problem you have with the slideshows etc, I use irfanview on my windows systems, and iPhoto on my mac, and I don't see any functional difference. Far as that goes, if I just want a quick & dirty slideshow, apple's "preview" app is faster. But whatever.
iTunes is available for Windows, so I'm not sure why you're bothering to insist that it is something that makes Macs better. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I was responding to someone (you? Another AC? It's _so_ hard to know/care) bringing up WinAMP and WMP, not someone talking about iTunes for PC vs iTunes for Mac.
Nevertheless, I use WinAMP more than iTunes because it has a great minimal interface usable while browsing the web. Ah. I use this button up in the corner that shrinks the window down when I'm not using it for that purpose. Meets my needs...
You still haven't said anything actually better about the bundled apps than the free alternatives, so I'll continue considering the statement that "[Photos, video, and music are] easier on a Mac" to be bullshit. Well it's not my statement, so I didn't know I had the onus to support someone else's point. Maybe you have me confused with someone else? ut in any case, YES, they are easier. You don't have to download 7 different programs from 5 different sources just to get a freshly loaded system ready to go. Also, the apps have a consistant user interface, very intuitive to use if you are able to break your workflow habits. It's fine if you don't _get it_, but that doesn't mean it's inferior, it just means you don't grok it, or just don't grok it yet.
Or are you now going to turn around and tell me that the Intel processor in Macs is somehow better at videos and music than the Intel Core 2 Duo in my PC?
I sense a lot of hostility, and quite frankly, have no interest in countering that. I have no idea why you'd assign a point of view to me on a topic that I haven't even touched on. CPU flavor has _nothing_ to do with application and OS usability. As you undoubtedly know.
I can't wait for Vista and other upgrades to XP to come out, including little photo apps and media apps. I mean, the iLife stuff is free on Windows (Picasa, IrfanView, WinAMP, WMP), so I won't really use the Vista included crap, just like I wouldn't use the very limited, basic iPhoto. But I can't wait until MS includes it in the OS, so Mac users will shut the fuck up. If you think those are equivalent to iLife apps, it shows that you just haven't spent enough (or maybe any) time using both. What, for instance, are you claiming IrfanView is equivalent to? And are you _really_ saying that WMP is equivalent to iTunes? Yeah, they both play music. But, if that's your test, then a Mercedes is equivalant to a Kia.
As far as MS including useful apps in the OS, yeah, it'd be nice if they would do that. Maybe they'll get Vista right, time will tell. But having used both, I just can't see going back to Windows unless there is dramatic improvement in security, usability, and design.
Ah, I see the problem now. You injected a non-sequitur. No, I commented on ONE aspect of the original post which seemed to me to be an obvious point in need of making. And yes, my point of "If you don't want to pay 100 bucks for something, don't bid 100 bucks on something" stands, regardless of the motivations of the other bidders.
You then go on to accuse me of saying that people who are defrauded somehow deserve it. You, sir, are a waste of my time. I'm not attacking victims of shill bidding, I'm "attacking" people who complain that they bid $100 for something they think was only worth $50.
I didn't know it was a requirement for posting that every aspect of a post be addressed. Seems to me, I spotted an obvious flaw in the guy's thinking process (bidding more than he wanted to pay for something), and suggested that perhaps he rethink his strategy. And then you and your like-thinkers jumped all over me for things I have not said, and have in fact quite strongly said the opposite of. how about you read what I'm saying, and comment on _that_?
Or just realize that you don't _get it_, that'd be fine too.
My entire point is that shill bidding is fraud and has no defense. I am not, and never have, disagreed with that.
Whining about someone bidding more than they wanted to pay (when that was clearly not what he was complaining about) is a defense of shill bidding. You defended shill bidding. Bullshit. If that's what you got from my posts, then your reading comprehension is as poor as your rhetorical skills.
You are claiming now it is because you are an idiot that couldn't understand the initial point. That's ok. And, fabricating my point of view to be one specific thing is equally disappointing. Don't you have any actual _valid_ points to make?
But to the rest of us it looked more like you were someone that actually approved of shill bidding. That's why we were all over you, dude. Sheesh. Only an idiot could read my words which say, in effect, don't bid more than you want to pay for something, which has nothing to do with shill bidding and see that as a defense of it. I ask again - do you have anything useful to contribute?
The motivation of people bidding against you doesn't enter into it. If you don't bid more than it's worth, than you can't get ripped off. This is an _independent_ issue from shlling. Knock knock yourself.
I followed this inane back-and-forth just to see how it would resolve.
YOU ARE BEING DUMB. You either
A: Still don't understand the way that shill bidding ruins the entire auction system
B: Think it's OK
C: All of the above
There.
No, and I think I've made my point abundantly clear. The original example, sucks. It sucks in ways unrelated to shill bidding, which _also sucks_. I _UNDERSTAND_ what shill bidding is, and how it's bad. I also think that bidding 100 bucks for something worth 50, is astonishingly stupid; the only thing dumber is to then whine repeatedly about doing it. YES shilling is bad. YES ebay has ways for you to see, report, and respond to it. What else, specifically, would you propose they do? See if you can answer in ways which don't involve namecalling, mm-kay?
I followed this inane back-and-forth just to see how it would resolve.
YOU ARE BEING DUMB. You either
A: Still don't understand the way that shill bidding ruins the entire auction system
B: Think it's OK
C: All of the above
RonB makes sense. You do not. Sorry. He has a good argument.
think of it this way;
I bid $100 to protect me from my co-workers bidding that high. When they don't, I should be happy to receive the item for the initial $5 opening bid. but WAIT.. a shill for the seller starts testing my bid. Surely this thing is worth more than $5 and I must have bid more as I did at least bid. Hi shills it up to $100 - I am supposed to be happy? No. Bloody farking hell. This isn't complicated. My point was and is, if you don't want to pay 100 bucks for it, DON'T BID 100 BUCKS FOR IT.
You see it as havgin saved $700. I see it as having lost $95 to fraud.
No. Not even close. The only way to misinterpret what I'm saying is through sheer intentional bloody-mindedness. IF you don't want to pay $100 for something you think is worth $50, then just bid $50. Sheesh.
You honestly are probably a smart person, but you clearly fail to see why anyone uses ebay. Based on how you talk, you should only bid the next increment on a bid and I'll assume that is exactly what you do when you use eBay - if you enter a higher proxy or don't use ebay at all, you're either a hypocrite or giant moron. And you clearly have a reading comprehension problem. What's next, you accuse me of being a stockholder or employee for defending eBay? Seems to be about your level of thinking. I'm taking the astonishing approach of "don't bid more than you want to pay for something", and pointing out that the guy who bid more than he wants, has a losing strategy.
This doesn't even take into account the whole detecting shills etc. I have never been arguing that. The OP I responded to flat out asked "Where is the problem w/ shill bidding? Who really cares?" I was trying to demonstrate exactly that problem.
OK, I'm done. When you start fabricating quotes, there's obviously no value in spending any more time on you. Congrats, you "win" or whatever.
Here's one last hint: when you put quotation marks around something, that means you're quoting them. I grepped through the OP, and the only place your quote exists, is in YOUR post. That may be your interpretation of what he said, but it's not a farking quote. Pretending it is, is dishonest.
In your original post, your point is that OP shouldnt bid $100 and if they bid $100, it's not unfair that they be charged $100 - be it by fraud. Now your point is ebay's policies are unenforceable? What's your point, exactly? Um, no, not even close. In my original post, I pointed out that rather than complain about paying $100 for something they only wanted to pay $50 for, then they shouldn't have _BID $100_ on it.
And then you go on to tell me what my opinion _is_, when you apparently can't read simple sentences and come to the correct conclusion about what they mean? Here:
In your opinion, OP's strategy is bad because it doesnt account for fraud. Agreed. No, in my opinion, if you don't want to pay up to $100.00 for something, you shouldn't bid up to $100 on it. This isn't subtle.
But if fraud is universal and not liable to be detected, bidding $100 on a current price of $50 is a non-strategy,
I don't make my bids based on current bid, I base it on what I want to pay for the item. Perhaps you could try _that_ strategy.
and it should be disallowed or at least discouraged by Ebay. Either way, Ebay is to blame.
Now that has gone from "you don't understand", to "you're an idiot". Seriously. Until someone bids more than you, your maximum bid isn't revealed, so that doesn't enter into it. So... Let's say I want to buy a roll of silver quarters. Based on today's spot price, that's got a spot value of $95.05 exactly. Let's say Joe is selling a dozen rolls this week, and he starts them at $.99 as he always does. I'm going to be $89.27 or something on them, every roll he's selling. Maybe a dozen, maybe just 3 this week, depends on what his inventory is. You're going to pretend now that I should be banned from doing that? WHY?!?!??!?!?!? That's what it's worth to me. I know the guy, I've dealt with him for many months and dozens of transactions, and I know he's legit. He combines shipping charges. He takes my personal checks without problem, because he knows _me_. I buy from him often, and bid on nearly everything he sells. And yet, I probably fit most if not all of what you would consider a pattern of a shill bidder, except that I'm not. So how does _that_ work? Now you're saying that me, bidding 5-15% under spot price and 90 times the current bid, "should be disallowed or at least discouraged by Ebay"??? Why exactly? And, given all that eBay _is_ doing to give you and everyone else visibility into who is bidding with whose auctions, tools to report, tools to withdraw bids - what specifically is eBay's fault again? Should I be banned from bidding on his stuff because I bid on his stuff a lot? I don't see any value there. Should I be banned from bidding on his stuff because I'm frequently the second-highest bidder? I don't think so - I'm legitimately trying to buy what he sells, and get maybe 10% of them. Where is the problem, and why do you propose putting limitations on _my_ bidding patterns because some sellers have their friends, or ghost accounts, bid on their stuff? It's like The Chewbacca Defense.
Sorry, but at this point, all I can figure is you're either one of these people with a serious grudge against eBay (because, I dunno, they're successful or something), or you just haven't thought this through even a little bit.
I was specifically addressing complaining about bidding (x) for an item and then paying (x) for it, for whatever reason.
Then by that you must think it is ok to shill bid.
Don't presume to speak for me, Ron. You're apparently barely qualified to be your _own_ spokesman. I'm merely pointing out, that if you only want to pay 50 dollars for something, don't bid up to 100 dollars for it. Give me a break...this isn't complicated; that example sucks.
One last try: Bid what you think something is worth. If you see evidence of shill bidding, there are mechanisms to report it, so _report it_. If you're wrong, then you're wrong. If you're right, retract your bid. I'm not defending shilling, I'm not saying it's OK, and to be honest, I don't think it's as widespread as people seem to think it is. In this very thread, people are saying things like "If it's the same bidder ID as the seller ID", which shows me they don't know jack about the topic - that can't happen, you're automatically blocked from bidding on your own stuff. And if anything, last week's change to semi-anonymize the bidding after something hits $200.00 has made shilling _easier_ to detect. Click on bid history, see "bidder 1", "bidder 2", "bidder 3", and so on? Click on those, you can see what sort of thing they've been buying and from whom. The info is right there in front of you. eBay _IS_ making it easy for you to detect what you think is a pattern of shilling between a buyer and seller. They do have rules against it, mechanisms against it, and I challenge you to come up with a formula to apply to detect it programatically in an accurate way. You can't. You just choose to sit back and pretend that slashdot posts mean one thing when they clearly mean something else.
Now then. Did you have anything of substance to add, or do you just want to tell me yet again that I'm supporting shills, based on something from your imagination.
Then, why in the world would you (a) bid $100 for it, and then (b) complain when you didn't get outbid?!?!?!
Because he was defrauded out of $45. What part of fraud do you not understand? (heavy sigh) What is this, National Intentionally Missing The Farking Point Day? I _said_ I'm not defending shill bidders. I've even described in another sub-discussion on this thread a bidding pattern that I personally have with a seller, which someone who is into making assumptions might think was me being his shill. It's perfectly legitimate. Does shilling happen? Of course. Is it bad? Obviously. Do I support or condone it? Of course not. My entire point was, if dude only wanted to pay 50 bucks for something, dude shouldn't have bid 100 bucks on it. Sheesh.
No DJH, YOU missed the point of my OP. What Pentagram said was dead on. In that example, I am more than willing to pay $100 for the item. But that is against legit competition. If that competition falls out at $50, then $50 is "fair auction value." If shills come in and jack that up to $75 or $100 with no intention of doing anything but driving up my final paying cost, then that is fraud. Settle down there sparky, no need to shout. My only point was, either the item is worth 50 bucks to you, or up to 100 bucks to you. If it's not worth up to 100 bucks to you, don't bid up to 100 bucks.
My example is extreme, but it demonstrates the problem with shill bidding.
No, it demonstrates the problem with someone bidding more than they want to pay for an item. I wasn't addressing shills at all, I was specifically addressing complaining about bidding (x) for an item and then paying (x) for it, for whatever reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it appears that every year, the rules for what constitutes {{fairuse}} on English Wikipedia become stricter, and swaths of images get speedied. Some people who edit Wikipedia fear that it will become Wikipedia policy to have zero images in articles about major motion pictures.
Could be. The guy was making a general statement, a wide sweeping claim about all of wikipedia, and I have found that not to be true for the areas I contribute in. Hence my comment.My direct personal (and recent) experience differs from that which you are describing.
You must not edit a lot of articles whose subject is a non-free copyrighted work.
You're right, I don't. I stick more to scientific and factual things rather than articles on books, movies, etc. Not bashing you, don't get me wrong, just not my thing. My point was that the guy was saying the rules change all the time, and maybe in some areas they do, but in many areas they do not. Either way, that's more a function of the law and it being interpreted and/or tested, as opposed to any arbitrary decision on some evil moderator's part or something.
Right, because even though we were promised followup events that "will dwarf 9/11" and they haven't happened, _obviously_ that money has all been wasted, is that it? As far as the auto crashes...I've been an EMT for a dozen years or so. I've never been to a fatal accident where the person who died was wearing a seatbelt. Not once. Spend all you want but when some idiot doesn't even take advantage of the basic safety equipment they've already been provided in their vehicle, there's no helping them.
I disagree - I've uploaded quite a lot of images, it just takes a few minutes of research to understand which license they fit under, to state that, and to use the correct tagging.
They change the fair use licensing every year and they send some bot over to undo everything you ever did. It's annoying. Practically anything that is not a screen shot gets challenged.
My direct personal (and recent) experience differs from that which you are describing.
Last thing I need is another admin to challenge my edits.
I think perhaps that wikis are not for you, then; that's kind of the whole point, that people fix problems and improve articles.
I'm pretty sure what the GP was asking for was the ability to plaster a link to their site on every page that they edit or significantly contribute to. I think this is a terrible idea for a couple reasons - mainly, it's an unrelated link, and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia article about something else. Allowing the authors of pages to include links to their blogs/affiliate sites/etc creates more unnecessary noise.
Ah. I was thinking the motivation was altruistic but wanting to get some sort of recognition for themselves, which as we both seem to be saying, exists but doesn't meet his goals.
Second, it's a volunteer project. Nobody else expects to get paid, but for some reason this person is basically saying that they would only be willing to contribute if it would make them money. There are plenty of people willing to contribute to free encyclopedias for nothing but the satisfaction of having done so - if some people expect more compensation than that - it's probably not the pastime for them.
Good point. I guess I'd rather have someone contributing for the love of the project, than someone who sees themselves as entitled to something for doing so. I guess I was being too
So yeah. Spammy links don't belong in wikipedia, I've removed them as I've come across them, and I don't have a problem with that. Far as the original project that the article is about, well, I think that's a lot more effort than just fixing problems in wikipedia, which is already there, well established, and just needs continual tuning. As opposed to a complete rewrite (or write).
Maybe I'm missing something - but, I edit wikipedia articles with my real name, so my name is linked to my work. I suppose I could even put a link to my homepage in my user: page on wikipedia if I wanted to. I'm not sure how this differs from what you're talking about, functionally?
Right now I do not live from my web pages, I don't know if I want to, but with my present job status those returning visitors I do have on my webpage and blog are quite valuable to me as they might be the start of what I may have to turn to make a living, at least for a time, if no geophysics work shows up here soon. No reason you couldn't put a "Check out my contributions to wikipedia, at (this link)" on your own pages. That's more likely to work for you anyway, rather than trying to get people to chase you down from the other direction.
Really. So you understand the difference between an estimate and the craftsman doing the actual work then, right? The estimator's job is to be close enough that they come out just about right. Overages, OR underages, are bad. Yet, it's an _estimate_. This is a tool to get reasonable accuracy (so it's claimed) for doing estimates. No finish carpenter worth employing would use these measurements as a cutlist, that's not what it's for. This is so they can say "OK, homeowner, that's 527 square feet of siding, 240 feet of soffit and facia, 220 feet of gutter, and 12 square of shingles, so your cost estimate for materials is blah". Obviously nobody is going to go and cut the siding to 17' 4-11/16" based on something like this.
Right, and that's a very good point. Rather than continue to support a fundamentally broken design for eternity, Apple said, in effect, "OK, new OS entirely, lots of old stuff just plain Will Not Work." MS has been reluctant to do that, maybe up to and including Vista. I really, really think they need to draw a line and say "Anything OS-ish before _here_, sorry, not gonna work, period" so they can stop including fundamental design flaws for the sake of staying backwards compatible with 5 or 10 year old stuff. It's funny - I can't read files from Word 95 on an XP box, but they try to make executables from then work. What's more likely to be needed? Seems to me, let the office formats be backward compatible, no problem there, but dump the OS compatibility attempts that make the new one suck for the same reasons the old one sucked. Now, let me be completely clear - I have not, and quite likely never will, buy vista. So I'm saying this as an already-decided outsider. I just don't see what needs I have that it would meet.
OK couple things about his statements that jumped out at me from reading TFA: The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.
Um, Bill, Apple hasn't had to fix DLL hell, and processes run by a user blowing away system things, because they didn't build those problems in in the first place. They didn't have to block open ports with vulnerable services listening on the by default, because they're not _open_ by default. And so on. Next?
Question: How about the implication that you need surgery to upgrade? Well, certainly we've done a better job letting you upgrade on the hardware than our competitors have done.
How so, Bill? What are the hardware requirements for your new OS? How many 5 year old boxes, or even 3 year old boxes, meet that?
You can choose to buy a new machine, or you can choose to do an upgrade. And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say? Does honesty matter in these things, or if you're really cool, that means you get to be a lying person whenever you feel like it? There's not even the slightest shred of truth to it.
So Bill is saying, that there's no truth to the statement that you need to make hardware changes if you want to upgrade to vista. NO truth to it.
Tell that to my inlaws; they'll need a new box entirely.
I mean, it's fascinating, maybe we shouldn't have showed so publicly the stuff we were doing, because we knew how long the new security base was going to take us to get done. Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
OK Bill, show me the figures. Show me a total exploit on OSX. Now, show me 365 of them for each year it's been out. Back up your figures or be shown to be the liar you are.
I just can't keep going through this, I think that one says it all about the guy's outright lies, and/or complete lack of clue. So, windows fanbois, is he lying, or is he clueless?
"I notice he hasn't responded to this."
'Cause I've been traveling. Greetings from O'Hare's B concourse.
Ugh. Sorry to hear that. Nothing about O'Hare is fun.
"I'm thinking it's because, well, there isn't an easy way to do it. In fact, I can't think of a _hard_ way to do it. Maybe an SUID script to open it as root, but then you have the display thing to deal with. Hm... more likely he was just talking out his arse."
I think I was too delicate in making my point. See my reference to the kitty cat in my original post. Yeah, it's highly unlikely that pussy would dance across the keys in a manner to make this happen, but the point is that it's about as likely, practically speaking, that some audio playing over my speakers would cause a similar fate to befall a Vista installation.
I see your point, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with it. If MS as truly trusted voice control with, effectively, root access, then it's a different layer of trust and vulnerability.
I think my post was taken as flamebait or an OSX vs. Windows sort of thing. That was not the intention -- I use both. The point is that it's fun to have a laugh at Microsoft's expense.
On this, we agree. But I really think that getting a root shell on OSX from visiting a remote website is a hell of a lot less likely. The obvious solution is to not automatically grant permission to execute voice commands as admin, but that itself leads to abuses and obvious DOS mechanisms. It's really just another case of MS wanting a feature regardless of the implications, and not thinking it through or not caring.Really? How do I get a shell prompt on a Mac with root access without typing my password?
I notice he hasn't responded to this. I'm thinking it's because, well, there isn't an easy way to do it. In fact, I can't think of a _hard_ way to do it. Maybe an SUID script to open it as root, but then you have the display thing to deal with. Hm... more likely he was just talking out his arse.
please don't just say "don't bid $5,000 if you don't think it is worth it"
Yes, I saw your post. Skimmed over it even. your short response, like a broken record:
if you say an item is worth 50 bucks, don't bid 100 bucks for it and then complain about it
Right. Which was my initial point - the original post stated that he was upset that something worth 50 dollars, he had paid 95 for because he bid 100. I suggested that if, to him, it's worth 50 dollars, he should only _BID_ 50 dollars. I _UNDERSTAND_ that the only reason it went up to 95 (in his mind) is because of a shill. Thing is, an item is worth to you what it's worth to you, regardless of the number and motivations of other bidders. Pick that number and bid it. Another item just like it will come along soon enough. You dodged my entire post and only came back with your same old broken-record statement. I attempted to present what I thought was a good scenario for discussion (artwork up for auction), but you cannot discuss it?
No, it's more of a "you're not worth the effort". I suppose if you were posting as other than AC, and lost some of the abusive snide commentary, I'd consider it. Feel free to claim victory or something on the aspect of the post which I stated from the start that I wasn't addressing. Bye bye, you win. Whatever. You've gone from missing my point, to intentionally missing my point in an abusive way.
Thank you for showing that you are completely incapable of understanding that a person can address one part of a post, and say they're specifically NOT addressing the other part of the post. My point was, and is, if you say an item is worth 50 bucks, don't bid 100 bucks for it and then complain about it. But I suppose, if you feel the need to keep going on and on and on about the aspect I specifically said I wasn't commenting on, go right ahead.
Have a great day, AC.
Give me a break. You post as AC, and you're taking me to task for not knowing which of the AC posts are from you, and that I haven't seen what other points you've been making? HELLO?
You're either saying Macs are better for media or you're not. For that is what this thread is about.
Indeed. In my experience, my Mac is easier to use for photos and music, than my PCs. But, you see, I'm not tied to a specific way of doing something; I get into iWhatever, and hey look, OK, hadn't thought of doing it that way before, I see...OK I'll try it. I don't try to force iWhatever to act like MS WhateverElse, I use it for what it is, and - guess what? There's some pretty well thought out stuff there. The consistent look and feel, predictable UI, and common methods across iWhatever to iWhateverelse are, to me, valuable.
(shrug) fair enough.
I was excited about being able to use iPhoto, after hearing great things about it. But I found its photo management options poor.
Maybe I'm using it wrong, but - _what_ photo management are you trying to do? Categorize into albums & books? Got that. Sort by roll, or by date? Got that. Sort by filname or whatever metadata? Got that. Not sure what else I'd need. Maybe this is just a "your workflow habits would change going to a different tool", but that's hardly specific to iPhoto.
Picasa's or ACDSee's are better. And IrfanView is a better quick browser and slideshow viewer, with greater basic photo editing options than iPhoto. Everything about iPhoto is better in freeware or cheap Windows apps.
Well, I guess that's debatable. I'd rather have one app that does 90% of what I want, and, when I want to go outside, just right click on "edit with -> photoshop" to do the rest. Not sure what problem you have with the slideshows etc, I use irfanview on my windows systems, and iPhoto on my mac, and I don't see any functional difference. Far as that goes, if I just want a quick & dirty slideshow, apple's "preview" app is faster. But whatever.
iTunes is available for Windows, so I'm not sure why you're bothering to insist that it is something that makes Macs better.
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I was responding to someone (you? Another AC? It's _so_ hard to know/care) bringing up WinAMP and WMP, not someone talking about iTunes for PC vs iTunes for Mac.
Nevertheless, I use WinAMP more than iTunes because it has a great minimal interface usable while browsing the web. Ah. I use this button up in the corner that shrinks the window down when I'm not using it for that purpose. Meets my needs...
You still haven't said anything actually better about the bundled apps than the free alternatives, so I'll continue considering the statement that "[Photos, video, and music are] easier on a Mac" to be bullshit.
Well it's not my statement, so I didn't know I had the onus to support someone else's point. Maybe you have me confused with someone else? ut in any case, YES, they are easier. You don't have to download 7 different programs from 5 different sources just to get a freshly loaded system ready to go. Also, the apps have a consistant user interface, very intuitive to use if you are able to break your workflow habits. It's fine if you don't _get it_, but that doesn't mean it's inferior, it just means you don't grok it, or just don't grok it yet.
Or are you now going to turn around and tell me that the Intel processor in Macs is somehow better at videos and music than the Intel Core 2 Duo in my PC?
I sense a lot of hostility, and quite frankly, have no interest in countering that. I have no idea why you'd assign a point of view to me on a topic that I haven't even touched on. CPU flavor has _nothing_ to do with application and OS usability. As you undoubtedly know.
As far as MS including useful apps in the OS, yeah, it'd be nice if they would do that. Maybe they'll get Vista right, time will tell. But having used both, I just can't see going back to Windows unless there is dramatic improvement in security, usability, and design.
No, I commented on ONE aspect of the original post which seemed to me to be an obvious point in need of making. And yes, my point of "If you don't want to pay 100 bucks for something, don't bid 100 bucks on something" stands, regardless of the motivations of the other bidders.
You then go on to accuse me of saying that people who are defrauded somehow deserve it. You, sir, are a waste of my time. I'm not attacking victims of shill bidding, I'm "attacking" people who complain that they bid $100 for something they think was only worth $50.
I didn't know it was a requirement for posting that every aspect of a post be addressed. Seems to me, I spotted an obvious flaw in the guy's thinking process (bidding more than he wanted to pay for something), and suggested that perhaps he rethink his strategy. And then you and your like-thinkers jumped all over me for things I have not said, and have in fact quite strongly said the opposite of. how about you read what I'm saying, and comment on _that_?
Or just realize that you don't _get it_, that'd be fine too.
I am not, and never have, disagreed with that.
Whining about someone bidding more than they wanted to pay (when that was clearly not what he was complaining about) is a defense of shill bidding. You defended shill bidding.
Bullshit. If that's what you got from my posts, then your reading comprehension is as poor as your rhetorical skills. You are claiming now it is because you are an idiot that couldn't understand the initial point. That's ok.
And, fabricating my point of view to be one specific thing is equally disappointing. Don't you have any actual _valid_ points to make?
But to the rest of us it looked more like you were someone that actually approved of shill bidding. That's why we were all over you, dude. Sheesh.
Only an idiot could read my words which say, in effect, don't bid more than you want to pay for something, which has nothing to do with shill bidding and see that as a defense of it. I ask again - do you have anything useful to contribute?
The motivation of people bidding against you doesn't enter into it. If you don't bid more than it's worth, than you can't get ripped off. This is an _independent_ issue from shlling. Knock knock yourself.
YOU ARE BEING DUMB. You either
A: Still don't understand the way that shill bidding ruins the entire auction system
B: Think it's OK
C: All of the above
There.
No, and I think I've made my point abundantly clear. The original example, sucks. It sucks in ways unrelated to shill bidding, which _also sucks_. I _UNDERSTAND_ what shill bidding is, and how it's bad. I also think that bidding 100 bucks for something worth 50, is astonishingly stupid; the only thing dumber is to then whine repeatedly about doing it. YES shilling is bad. YES ebay has ways for you to see, report, and respond to it. What else, specifically, would you propose they do? See if you can answer in ways which don't involve namecalling, mm-kay? I followed this inane back-and-forth just to see how it would resolve.
YOU ARE BEING DUMB. You either
A: Still don't understand the way that shill bidding ruins the entire auction system
B: Think it's OK
C: All of the above
There.
think of it this way;
I bid $100 to protect me from my co-workers bidding that high. When they don't, I should be happy to receive the item for the initial $5 opening bid. but WAIT.. a shill for the seller starts testing my bid. Surely this thing is worth more than $5 and I must have bid more as I did at least bid. Hi shills it up to $100 - I am supposed to be happy?
No. Bloody farking hell. This isn't complicated. My point was and is, if you don't want to pay 100 bucks for it, DON'T BID 100 BUCKS FOR IT.
You see it as havgin saved $700. I see it as having lost $95 to fraud.
No. Not even close. The only way to misinterpret what I'm saying is through sheer intentional bloody-mindedness. IF you don't want to pay $100 for something you think is worth $50, then just bid $50. Sheesh.
You honestly are probably a smart person, but you clearly fail to see why anyone uses ebay. Based on how you talk, you should only bid the next increment on a bid and I'll assume that is exactly what you do when you use eBay - if you enter a higher proxy or don't use ebay at all, you're either a hypocrite or giant moron. And you clearly have a reading comprehension problem. What's next, you accuse me of being a stockholder or employee for defending eBay? Seems to be about your level of thinking. I'm taking the astonishing approach of "don't bid more than you want to pay for something", and pointing out that the guy who bid more than he wants, has a losing strategy.
OK, I'm done. When you start fabricating quotes, there's obviously no value in spending any more time on you. Congrats, you "win" or whatever.
Here's one last hint: when you put quotation marks around something, that means you're quoting them. I grepped through the OP, and the only place your quote exists, is in YOUR post. That may be your interpretation of what he said, but it's not a farking quote. Pretending it is, is dishonest.
Um, no, not even close. In my original post, I pointed out that rather than complain about paying $100 for something they only wanted to pay $50 for, then they shouldn't have _BID $100_ on it.
And then you go on to tell me what my opinion _is_, when you apparently can't read simple sentences and come to the correct conclusion about what they mean? Here:
In your opinion, OP's strategy is bad because it doesnt account for fraud. Agreed.
No, in my opinion, if you don't want to pay up to $100.00 for something, you shouldn't bid up to $100 on it. This isn't subtle.
But if fraud is universal and not liable to be detected, bidding $100 on a current price of $50 is a non-strategy,
I don't make my bids based on current bid, I base it on what I want to pay for the item. Perhaps you could try _that_ strategy.
and it should be disallowed or at least discouraged by Ebay. Either way, Ebay is to blame.
Now that has gone from "you don't understand", to "you're an idiot". Seriously. Until someone bids more than you, your maximum bid isn't revealed, so that doesn't enter into it. So... Let's say I want to buy a roll of silver quarters. Based on today's spot price, that's got a spot value of $95.05 exactly. Let's say Joe is selling a dozen rolls this week, and he starts them at $.99 as he always does. I'm going to be $89.27 or something on them, every roll he's selling. Maybe a dozen, maybe just 3 this week, depends on what his inventory is. You're going to pretend now that I should be banned from doing that? WHY?!?!??!?!?!? That's what it's worth to me. I know the guy, I've dealt with him for many months and dozens of transactions, and I know he's legit. He combines shipping charges. He takes my personal checks without problem, because he knows _me_. I buy from him often, and bid on nearly everything he sells. And yet, I probably fit most if not all of what you would consider a pattern of a shill bidder, except that I'm not. So how does _that_ work? Now you're saying that me, bidding 5-15% under spot price and 90 times the current bid, "should be disallowed or at least discouraged by Ebay"??? Why exactly? And, given all that eBay _is_ doing to give you and everyone else visibility into who is bidding with whose auctions, tools to report, tools to withdraw bids - what specifically is eBay's fault again? Should I be banned from bidding on his stuff because I bid on his stuff a lot? I don't see any value there. Should I be banned from bidding on his stuff because I'm frequently the second-highest bidder? I don't think so - I'm legitimately trying to buy what he sells, and get maybe 10% of them. Where is the problem, and why do you propose putting limitations on _my_ bidding patterns because some sellers have their friends, or ghost accounts, bid on their stuff? It's like The Chewbacca Defense.
Sorry, but at this point, all I can figure is you're either one of these people with a serious grudge against eBay (because, I dunno, they're successful or something), or you just haven't thought this through even a little bit.
Don't presume to speak for me, Ron. You're apparently barely qualified to be your _own_ spokesman. I'm merely pointing out, that if you only want to pay 50 dollars for something, don't bid up to 100 dollars for it. Give me a break...this isn't complicated; that example sucks.
One last try: Bid what you think something is worth. If you see evidence of shill bidding, there are mechanisms to report it, so _report it_. If you're wrong, then you're wrong. If you're right, retract your bid. I'm not defending shilling, I'm not saying it's OK, and to be honest, I don't think it's as widespread as people seem to think it is. In this very thread, people are saying things like "If it's the same bidder ID as the seller ID", which shows me they don't know jack about the topic - that can't happen, you're automatically blocked from bidding on your own stuff. And if anything, last week's change to semi-anonymize the bidding after something hits $200.00 has made shilling _easier_ to detect. Click on bid history, see "bidder 1", "bidder 2", "bidder 3", and so on? Click on those, you can see what sort of thing they've been buying and from whom. The info is right there in front of you. eBay _IS_ making it easy for you to detect what you think is a pattern of shilling between a buyer and seller. They do have rules against it, mechanisms against it, and I challenge you to come up with a formula to apply to detect it programatically in an accurate way. You can't. You just choose to sit back and pretend that slashdot posts mean one thing when they clearly mean something else.
Now then. Did you have anything of substance to add, or do you just want to tell me yet again that I'm supporting shills, based on something from your imagination.
Because he was defrauded out of $45. What part of fraud do you not understand? (heavy sigh) What is this, National Intentionally Missing The Farking Point Day? I _said_ I'm not defending shill bidders. I've even described in another sub-discussion on this thread a bidding pattern that I personally have with a seller, which someone who is into making assumptions might think was me being his shill. It's perfectly legitimate. Does shilling happen? Of course. Is it bad? Obviously. Do I support or condone it? Of course not. My entire point was, if dude only wanted to pay 50 bucks for something, dude shouldn't have bid 100 bucks on it. Sheesh.
Settle down there sparky, no need to shout. My only point was, either the item is worth 50 bucks to you, or up to 100 bucks to you. If it's not worth up to 100 bucks to you, don't bid up to 100 bucks.
My example is extreme, but it demonstrates the problem with shill bidding.
No, it demonstrates the problem with someone bidding more than they want to pay for an item. I wasn't addressing shills at all, I was specifically addressing complaining about bidding (x) for an item and then paying (x) for it, for whatever reason.