In addition to the obviously more extensive training your buddy gets before being allowed to pilot an apache, doesn't your buddy get a co-pilot though to help point out obstacles and other things he could miss? And in general, when flying jets or helicopters (definitely in non-combat situations, perhaps as well in some combat situations) aren't there simply fewer things out there competing for the space your vehicle is occupying than there are during the typical morning rush hour drive?
Sounds to me you're comparing two sets of people with vastly different preparation levels in two completely different types of situations.
If you can't glance at mapquest and keep your mind focused on the road as well, please don't breed, we don't want your genes spreading.
And please, refrain from breeding yourself, as we already have enough arrogant piece of shit assholes in the world and we don't want your genes or nurtured qualities spreading.
Why the hell did a sarcastic snipe from a PC-drone that believes we all have the exact same level of ability in everything get modded to 5:Insightful???
I don't think he implied that we all have exactly the same level of ability, but that why isn't that everybody seems to think that they are somehow part of that "above average" group, as you point out yourself. So you're ranting at him for making basically the same point as you did, but not as clearly expressed.
The case was filed in a federal court. Federal courts have the same personal jurisdiction issues that state courts have, and that's what the court was ruling on.
Whether you can file in federal or state court in this case is irrelevant to the fact that it's related to interstate trade. Federal courts can here cases they have subject matter jurisdiction over (i.e., federal laws) or where they have diversity of citizenship (people or corporations domiciled in different states) and the amount of damages claimed is over $75,000. You can bring a suit under a state law in federal court if the court has jurisdiction because of diversity (always), or if the suit involves claims under both state and federal law (sometimes). Also, it's not a federal law they are suing under, it's a state law. The interstate trade issue if anything brings up issues whether VA can pass a law like this.*
* requisite disclaimer, IANAL, IAAL[aw]S[tudent] (1L). But I'm pretty sure this is correct...
Who got their methodology from all of those "independent" researchers bought off, I mean funded, by generous grants from Exxon, GE, Southern Company, and their ilk.
am I the only one here who would honestly love to see microsoft improve their software and licensing rather than just failing and being consumed by GNU/Linux/FOSS?
Israel's complaints are purely over price - the State of Israel does have better things to do with its money than pay a monopoly tax to a foreign corporation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also thought it was because of MS's crappy half-hearted support of Hebrew.
1. I don't think they were suing under CAN-SPAM (I highly doubt they could have gotten a case in that quickly after it was signed). I believe it was a state law they were suing under.
2. Federal courts have the same (personal) jurisdiction as the state they are in. So even if they were suing under a federal law (or if the damages were over $75,000 and citizenship is diverse (which it is)), they would have to bring suit in federal court in a state that has personal jurisdiction over them, which in this case would definitely be Florida, and apparently not Virginia.
I'm in Virginia. I sued people from out of state. I've won. I did all that in a Virginia state court.
So you either tagged them instate, they were doing business in Virginia, they consented to jurisdiction in VA, or they had a bad lawyer?
Someone should explain the "long arm" concept of law to hizzoner real fast.
Well, from what I gathered from the article and from my own understanding it sounds to me like he gets it. The spammers don't live in VA and did not purposely avail themselves of doing business in VA, so they didn't meet the threshold for establishing personal jurisdiction, at least according to the judge. Maybe if he had specific knowledge that the crap he was sending out was headed for Virginia it might be different.
As much as I hate AOL, they did have a case to file in State court. My guess is that the judge just didn't wanna deal with it.
As somebody else noted, it was filed in Federal court and not state court, which in the context of why the case was dismissed is meaningless: the geographical boundaries for the federal district courts is the same as for the state that they are located in. My guess is the judge didn't want to try a case that in his esteemed opinion would get overturned later.
Indeed it is. Personal jurisdiction is based on the domicile of the defendant, not the plaintiff. "As a violation of State and Federal laws" denotes what courts have subject matter jurisdiction. You need to have both. So re-file in a state or federal court in Florida
I don't know a whole lot about Judaism, but from what I do know (largely base on empirical observations and discussions with Jewish friends) it does strike me that it is much easier to be the most conservative Jew possible and still be able to survive comfortably in a secular world then it is to be the most conservative Christian and do the same. Not knowing a whole lot about Judaism, I can only hypothesize that perhaps centuries of persecution and being blamed for the world's problems has made Jews better able to adapt to changes in secular society as a means of survival. That combined with a religion that is more about "here's how you're supposed to behave" not "here's where the world came from" (although it has some of that too).
I think I would stop though before putting the whole thing on the shoulders of modern Christianity. I know that's an easy thing to do, especially here in the U.S., but I think you may see somewhat similar results elsewhere in the world with other religions. I think it's just a re-telling of the same "new vs. old" story. Change and new ideas can make people uncomfortable, and even if Christianity (or insert other religion) could survive as a belief system if the world wasn't created in a literal seven days, it would still disrupt at least part of the foundation of the whole belief system, and that's what they're afraid of. Once you successfully challenge one thing, what's next? Maybe Jews iare just a bit more comfortable with making those types of changes without feeling completely threatened.
Also, KDE != Qt. Qt has existed on Mac for years anyway.
I realize that, but KDE is dependent on the Qt Toolkit, so having a native Mac version of that was one of the things that made the Konqueror port possible. And while Qt/Mac may have been around for (2) years, the GPL'd version has been available for less than a year, and these guys wouldn't been able to do a Mac port (or at least release it) without the licensing change.
Maybe as an early step to porting KOffice or some of the other more useful KDE applications. They're just starting off with the (relatively) easier ones.
Or maybe they're just working out some of the bugs in using Qt/Mac as a demonstration to show how to port other Qt based apps to OS X?
To be honest, I really dunno the answer, but given that the OpenOffice port to native Aqua doesn't seem to be moving along that quickly, it'll be nice to have some free non-X11 office apps available.
Now if only they could make it actually LOOK like a Mac app...
Saying somebody's "stupid" or"incorrect" opinion is valid isn't saying that you have to agree with or accept it. It's saying that it's their opinion and they have a right to it in the end. You can try to convince them to believe otherwise but in the end you just have to accept that it's their opinion and however dumb, yes, they have a right to believe whatever they want. Freedom to do something generally includes the freedom to choose not to do so: if somebody doesn't want to think something through, then they don't have to. You can encourage people to do so, and I suggest that it's a good idea to do so, but you can't force somebody to.
So what's the solution? Stealing a play from the tobacco industry book: hook 'em while they're young. Instill in children a devotion and habit of thinking things through critically might help. Teach kids to ask questions (which public schools do not do). Teach them to challenge authority (in a constructive fashion, some way other than just listening to punk music and dressing in black...).
Heh, don't bring Christianity into it, dude. I've started flame wars on that subject, and participated in many a.:) Faith is a complete absence of fact, and is usually accompanied by a complete absence of thought. I suspect I don't have to say any more on this subject....
Hey, I just used it as an example because it represents one of those great unprovable areas of though that you can argue 'bout 'til you're blue in the face, but in the end it all comes down to a mixture of faith, opinion, and trust. It's one of those great questions that at least at this point in time it's impossible to prove or disprove (at least without dying). A bit of a straw-man I s'pose to help illustrate my point.
I have to disagree though with your definition of faith; it's not antithetical to facts. Sure, it's quite possible for faith to directly contradict fact, but more often it's based on some set of facts. Faith is what takes over when facts run out before you get to where you need to go: it fills in the blanks and allows us to make decisions when we might otherwise not be able to. We survive every day by making small leaps of faith, and for some yes, it's one of the Big Things that makes life meaningful. I think what you're describing is dogmatism.
An opinion is valid if the person holding it believes it to be so. I am not a Christian. I do not believe that J.C. was the product of a virgin birth, that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, etc. But I find many Christians to be of the opinion that I am wrong (and that I am going to burn in hell for being so, but in my estimation if I'm going to hell it'll probably be for much worse things than a simple lack of faith...) and how am I able to say that is not a valid opinion? I can't prove them wrong, and they can't prove themselves to be correct. It's perfectly valid from their point of view, even if it is not from my own.
It's possible for us all to have our opinions focused on the same world, but we can only do that by sticking to facts and using strong, but not excessive logic to reach our opinions.
Again, which facts? People too often use facts in discussions like this as if they were the holy grail of all human thought, asserting that if we could only avoid emotion and base all of our actions on pure, rational, logical decision making then everything would be alright, there would be world peace and an end to hunger blah blah blah. And then I go and wonder why many of these people think I'm some sort of starry-eyed head in the clouds idealist.
People don't think like that, people don't act like that. People make their decisions and act based on a variety of different factors, and emotion is just as important as facts and logic and whatever else you can come up with. Denying this is denying the reality of what it is to be human, and in my opinion one of the more interesting aspects of being human. Damn I'm starting to sound like Captain Kirk in a Star Trek episode...
That being said, even if we did "stick to the facts" for our decision making, I would assert that we wouldn't be "viewing the same world". What this presumes is a level of near-perfect knowledge and access to information and the ability to quickly determine what facts are germane at any given moment. Lack of facts or selective disuse of facts lead to a fracturing of that "one world".
Ahh, nostalgia: this takes me back to my historiography classes in college (as a history major).
What about the census?
I think you could make an argument that the census (at least in the U.S.) is biased. In fact, there's been debate for quite a while over reforming how the census is taken because it's known that it is not accurate. Reformers generally favor using some sort of formula to "count" the people who are missed, but even that is not 100% accurate. Why does all this matter? Because there's big money involved. Federal funding for welfare, transportation, education, and lots of other programs depend on that population count, as well as political boundaries for representatives. Republicans generally favor using the actual counted number because it is more "biased" towards them while Democrats favor the adjusted numbers (those undercounted are usually lower class, ethnic minorities, and/or illegal immigrants who tend to lean Democratic). In the end, both numbers are still incorrect.
More importantly, "everything is biased" just feels like an excuse.
I wouldn't say that everything is biased, but most of the more interesting stuff is. It's pretty to argue with a statement like "The Normans invaded England in 1066", assuming that you agree on the calendar system being used. But really, who gives a shit? Why should I care about this? When you start talking about why this is important, that's when you start inserting bias.
That's why a lot of people push for teaching history in just this sort of "just the facts" way. What they tend to overlook though is that 1) It's terribly dull (and probably has a lot to do with why kids in the U.S. hate history) and 2) You don't really solve the bias problem, because you still have to choose what facts to teach - while you can probably make a good argument that it's more important to learn about William of Normandy then it is to learn about Jane Peasant, why is it important to know that Henry Ford revolutionized U.S. industry through his implementation of the assembly line but it's not important to know that he was an anti-semite and a union buster?
With that formula, all media is about deception
Some would assert that there's a fine line between information and propaganda...
Nobody is trustworthy
Define trustworthy. Seriously, what it boils down to is that you're going to have to decide for yourself who is and isn't trustworthy. This isn't really any different than in the past, all that really changes is how people decide who to trust. It used to be that kings were supposedly anointed by God; now we have the Electoral College. If you're Catholic, you probably trust your priest or the pope, if you're Jewish you probably trust your rabbi, if you're a Republican you probably trust Bush, and if you're a Democrat, well, I don't know who you trust these days. You may trust somebody because somebody else you trust gives them high marks. It works in reverse too; personally, I tend to initially distrust anybody cited by Thomas Sowell or Rush Limbaugh because I think they're boobs.
If all media is biased, all facts reported are just matters of opinion. And everybody's opinion is equal.
No, facts aren't opinions ('cause then they wouldn't be facts:), but what is reported and why it's important (AKA, "spin") is. See above.
Not everybody's opinion is equal, but everybody's opinion is valid, even if demonstrably untrue. Some opinions carry greater weight simply by brute force: lots of people believe it. That's how something that's not "Truth" can become "truth": because it's generally accepted to be so (think slavery, flat earth, sun revolving around the earth, etc.). I think this is the kind of thing that makes math and science types (as well as the extremely religious) queasy: when it comes to the social "sciences" (a misnomer applied in a unnecessary and misguided but good-intentioned attempt to gain a
That's not a bad position to take, in fact, I would encourage you not to contribute.
What I find insulting are the "f**king commie hippie losers begging for spare change blah blah blah" type posts that rather than stating something intelligent such as "I do not benefit from this organization's work nor do I feel that it contributes to society and therefore I will not give it any money" instead just slams them for daring to ask for money. Dude, it's called charity, it provides some resource to the community (i.e., homeless shelters, job training, clothing for the poor, trash clean ups, whatever your own pet cause is), and it asks those who can AND ARE WILLING to contribute to do so.
Donations are always a stopgap measure and aren't a substitute for a real company model -- be that business or otherwise. If advertising or merchandising is out (for ethical or whatever reasons), then they should be turning to foundations that can help with non-profit fundraising"
Having written grants and dealt with foundations, I can tell you that it's a lot harder to break into then you would think. While there is a lot of money to be given out, most foundations already have a list of organizations that they give to regularly and which comprise the bulk of their donations, and getting onto that list is not a short-term project. It can take years of building relationships, showing results, and other assorted ass-kissing. One of the things that foundations are going to look at before they're willing to give is what other sources of you have, so asking for donations from the general public is not a bad way to go, short and long term.
All that being said, I don't think you're point is without merit. What Wikimedia really needs to do is come up with a long-term financial plan instead of this piece-meal crap, hire a grant writer and start going after foundation money. But that's not going to negate the need to raise money from other sources, and it's not going to help them immediately.
What do you mean by "they"? I've edited and contributed dozens of articles to Wikipedia, corrected countless typos, and introduced new information. "I", by virtue of donating my time and energy, am part of Wikipedia, but I won't see a dime of that $20,000, and I've never gotten so much as a "thank you" for my efforts. There are a lot of us in this position.
"They" most likely refers to the Wikimedia Foundation, the official organization that pays the bills to keep the lights on so that you can volunteer your time and effort to contribute to the project. That's right, you are (or were from the sounds of it) a VOLUNTEER, and except as used in the context of the military, that usually means you don't get paid. It works the same in the online world as it does IRL. When I volunteer to pick up litter or plant trees or whatever, I don't do it expecting money. I'm sure that if they were going to pay everybody who contributed to the Wikipedia, they would have to ask for a hell of a lot more than $20,000.
As far as not getting a "thank you", on the one hand that's not a totally unreasonable gripe. Having spent a lot of time organizing work projects of various sorts for non-profits, I know that failure to praise and when possible recognize and reward those who contribute is a good way to squander morale and lose your volunteers. However, the fact that you expect it as if you have some sort of inalienable right to it is pretty fucking petty. I suggest you reassess why you would contribute time/money to a project in the first place, stop acting like a spoiled brat, and grow up.
You know what: If they are asking for that kind of money (which I don't believe they are going to spend only for the purposes they claim), I am not going to contribute money, and I am no longer going to spend contributing to Wikipedia.
I can't speak for everybody, but I wouldn't have an issue if they spent some of the money on other purposes, so long as they account for it and it is related to the project. I'm sure equipment isn't the only expense they have. In fact, I would suggest they set aside some money to work with a grant writer so that they can apply for foundation money that could better support the ongoing needs of the project.
Sure it is: it's still a free resource to those who are unable to contribute money. Sure, it's also free to the freeloaders who could contribute but won't, and if you want to you can be one of them, so long as your conscience doesn't bother you.
I do however realise that it's a free ressource and all, but nonetheless, there are other ways to sustain a site, other then asking for donations
If the product is viable, they can offer consulting for commercial installation, or they could offer a "premium" service where subscriber get access to a dedicated server, while the unwashed get to share whatever's left of the ressource,
At least in this case:
1. It's not a product, not in the way you're talking about it anyways, so I don't think providing installation services is going to be very helpful.
2. I think the idea of offering a dedicated server to subscribers and the table scraps for the unwashed is antithetical to the whole idea of the Wikipedia project. The way I see it, it's akin to the public school system (although given the quality of public schools in the U.S., I hate making this analogy as I think the Wikipedia is quite good). We all pay taxes, into the system, some more and some less according to their ability to do so, and in exchange we get a public school system that is there to serve everybody's children. And for all you anti-government tax haters, it's even better because you're not FORCED to pay into the system. It's your CHOICE whether or not to, but as long as enough people do, the system is there to serve everybody.
But if you're going to come after me for my hard earned money, you better have something to give in exchange for it.
They are. They're giving you the Wikipedia. Or is it that you're asking for something extra that nobody else (or at least those who do not donate) gets? Doesn't that go against the whole spirit of sharing and giving back to the greater community?
It's a cold way to look at it, but in this economic context, I'd rather spend on something other then someone else's website
Then go for it. Give to Habitat for Humanity or the Salvation Army or the LCV or the ACLU or the Boys and Girls Club or whatever. Or don't give any money to anybody at all. If what they are doing doesn't benefit you or your family or society in some way that you approve of, then feel free not to give them any money; there's lots of people/organizations who ask me for money that I don't contribute to for these very reasons, and you're free to do the same. But if you do use it and you do like it and you are able to contribute something but choose not to, then don't come bitching to me or anybody else when it's gone for lack of financial support. That being said, I like what they are doing and therefore my check's in the mail (f**k PayPal).
An how many people has that prevented from using it?
My guess would be that the decision to switch from using Exchange to another system might be beyond the decision making capacity of the original poster, and even if he did have the authority to do so, you might still see some resistance from the already installed userbase over switching to something new, making it easier to switch those in the minority over (i.e., good short term decision, though it doesn't help you in the long run).
Wolves (and other predators) will benefit until the deer are brought into a more sane population - then they'll turn on people.
Has somebody been reading too much Little Red Riding Hood? Wolves pose little to no danger to humans and if given the opportunity and not harassed will go out of their way to avoid us. The vast majority of wildlife encounters result from people hiking and camping doing stupid things like feeding wild animals, leaving out food, toothpaste, human waste, or other such items that attract wildlife, harassing animals, etc. The remainder are a result of humans further encroaching on wildlife habitat, often repeating the above mistakes. Sorry for my lack of sympathy, but people doing shit like this probably deserve to be attacked if they can't learn a little bit of common sense.
Right now we are all still pretty much at the mercy of Hollywood to make films that we like. Very soon, the balance of power will shift and creative individuals who have lots of ideas but budgets nowhere near those of studios will be able to create some very impressive looking films. And then Hollywood will have to get their ass in gear and show us something that we couldn't do ourselves in our own living room.
While I won't defend the "quality" of most of Hollywood's mainstream products, I must say you have far more faith in the ability of the average Joe to make a quality flick than I do. I would venture that 99% of fanfics SUCK; I fear what their movies would be like.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to the obviously more extensive training your buddy gets before being allowed to pilot an apache, doesn't your buddy get a co-pilot though to help point out obstacles and other things he could miss? And in general, when flying jets or helicopters (definitely in non-combat situations, perhaps as well in some combat situations) aren't there simply fewer things out there competing for the space your vehicle is occupying than there are during the typical morning rush hour drive?
Sounds to me you're comparing two sets of people with vastly different preparation levels in two completely different types of situations.
If you can't glance at mapquest and keep your mind focused on the road as well, please don't breed, we don't want your genes spreading.
And please, refrain from breeding yourself, as we already have enough arrogant piece of shit assholes in the world and we don't want your genes or nurtured qualities spreading.
Why the hell did a sarcastic snipe from a PC-drone that believes we all have the exact same level of ability in everything get modded to 5:Insightful???
I don't think he implied that we all have exactly the same level of ability, but that why isn't that everybody seems to think that they are somehow part of that "above average" group, as you point out yourself. So you're ranting at him for making basically the same point as you did, but not as clearly expressed.
The case was filed in a federal court. Federal courts have the same personal jurisdiction issues that state courts have, and that's what the court was ruling on.
Whether you can file in federal or state court in this case is irrelevant to the fact that it's related to interstate trade. Federal courts can here cases they have subject matter jurisdiction over (i.e., federal laws) or where they have diversity of citizenship (people or corporations domiciled in different states) and the amount of damages claimed is over $75,000. You can bring a suit under a state law in federal court if the court has jurisdiction because of diversity (always), or if the suit involves claims under both state and federal law (sometimes). Also, it's not a federal law they are suing under, it's a state law. The interstate trade issue if anything brings up issues whether VA can pass a law like this.*
* requisite disclaimer, IANAL, IAAL[aw]S[tudent] (1L). But I'm pretty sure this is correct...
Who got their methodology from all of those "independent" researchers bought off, I mean funded, by generous grants from Exxon, GE, Southern Company, and their ilk.
"That's why I only drink rainwater and pure grain alcohol"
am I the only one here who would honestly love to see microsoft improve their software and licensing rather than just failing and being consumed by GNU/Linux/FOSS?
Yes.
Israel's complaints are purely over price - the State of Israel does have better things to do with its money than pay a monopoly tax to a foreign corporation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also thought it was because of MS's crappy half-hearted support of Hebrew.
1. I don't think they were suing under CAN-SPAM (I highly doubt they could have gotten a case in that quickly after it was signed). I believe it was a state law they were suing under.
2. Federal courts have the same (personal) jurisdiction as the state they are in. So even if they were suing under a federal law (or if the damages were over $75,000 and citizenship is diverse (which it is)), they would have to bring suit in federal court in a state that has personal jurisdiction over them, which in this case would definitely be Florida, and apparently not Virginia.
I'm in Virginia. I sued people from out of state. I've won. I did all that in a Virginia state court.
So you either tagged them instate, they were doing business in Virginia, they consented to jurisdiction in VA, or they had a bad lawyer?
Someone should explain the "long arm" concept of law to hizzoner real fast.
Well, from what I gathered from the article and from my own understanding it sounds to me like he gets it. The spammers don't live in VA and did not purposely avail themselves of doing business in VA, so they didn't meet the threshold for establishing personal jurisdiction, at least according to the judge. Maybe if he had specific knowledge that the crap he was sending out was headed for Virginia it might be different.
As much as I hate AOL, they did have a case to file in State court. My guess is that the judge just didn't wanna deal with it.
As somebody else noted, it was filed in Federal court and not state court, which in the context of why the case was dismissed is meaningless: the geographical boundaries for the federal district courts is the same as for the state that they are located in. My guess is the judge didn't want to try a case that in his esteemed opinion would get overturned later.
Out of jusrisdiction indeed!
Indeed it is. Personal jurisdiction is based on the domicile of the defendant, not the plaintiff. "As a violation of State and Federal laws" denotes what courts have subject matter jurisdiction. You need to have both. So re-file in a state or federal court in Florida
I don't know a whole lot about Judaism, but from what I do know (largely base on empirical observations and discussions with Jewish friends) it does strike me that it is much easier to be the most conservative Jew possible and still be able to survive comfortably in a secular world then it is to be the most conservative Christian and do the same. Not knowing a whole lot about Judaism, I can only hypothesize that perhaps centuries of persecution and being blamed for the world's problems has made Jews better able to adapt to changes in secular society as a means of survival. That combined with a religion that is more about "here's how you're supposed to behave" not "here's where the world came from" (although it has some of that too).
I think I would stop though before putting the whole thing on the shoulders of modern Christianity. I know that's an easy thing to do, especially here in the U.S., but I think you may see somewhat similar results elsewhere in the world with other religions. I think it's just a re-telling of the same "new vs. old" story. Change and new ideas can make people uncomfortable, and even if Christianity (or insert other religion) could survive as a belief system if the world wasn't created in a literal seven days, it would still disrupt at least part of the foundation of the whole belief system, and that's what they're afraid of. Once you successfully challenge one thing, what's next? Maybe Jews iare just a bit more comfortable with making those types of changes without feeling completely threatened.
Also, KDE != Qt. Qt has existed on Mac for years anyway.
I realize that, but KDE is dependent on the Qt Toolkit, so having a native Mac version of that was one of the things that made the Konqueror port possible. And while Qt/Mac may have been around for (2) years, the GPL'd version has been available for less than a year, and these guys wouldn't been able to do a Mac port (or at least release it) without the licensing change.
Isn't OO based on GTK and not Qt? If so, I would guess it really wouldn't help that much.
Maybe as an early step to porting KOffice or some of the other more useful KDE applications. They're just starting off with the (relatively) easier ones.
Or maybe they're just working out some of the bugs in using Qt/Mac as a demonstration to show how to port other Qt based apps to OS X?
To be honest, I really dunno the answer, but given that the OpenOffice port to native Aqua doesn't seem to be moving along that quickly, it'll be nice to have some free non-X11 office apps available.
Now if only they could make it actually LOOK like a Mac app...
Saying somebody's "stupid" or"incorrect" opinion is valid isn't saying that you have to agree with or accept it. It's saying that it's their opinion and they have a right to it in the end. You can try to convince them to believe otherwise but in the end you just have to accept that it's their opinion and however dumb, yes, they have a right to believe whatever they want. Freedom to do something generally includes the freedom to choose not to do so: if somebody doesn't want to think something through, then they don't have to. You can encourage people to do so, and I suggest that it's a good idea to do so, but you can't force somebody to.
:) Faith is a complete absence of fact, and is usually accompanied by a complete absence of thought. I suspect I don't have to say any more on this subject....
So what's the solution? Stealing a play from the tobacco industry book: hook 'em while they're young. Instill in children a devotion and habit of thinking things through critically might help. Teach kids to ask questions (which public schools do not do). Teach them to challenge authority (in a constructive fashion, some way other than just listening to punk music and dressing in black...).
Heh, don't bring Christianity into it, dude. I've started flame wars on that subject, and participated in many a.
Hey, I just used it as an example because it represents one of those great unprovable areas of though that you can argue 'bout 'til you're blue in the face, but in the end it all comes down to a mixture of faith, opinion, and trust. It's one of those great questions that at least at this point in time it's impossible to prove or disprove (at least without dying). A bit of a straw-man I s'pose to help illustrate my point.
I have to disagree though with your definition of faith; it's not antithetical to facts. Sure, it's quite possible for faith to directly contradict fact, but more often it's based on some set of facts. Faith is what takes over when facts run out before you get to where you need to go: it fills in the blanks and allows us to make decisions when we might otherwise not be able to. We survive every day by making small leaps of faith, and for some yes, it's one of the Big Things that makes life meaningful. I think what you're describing is dogmatism.
An opinion is valid if the person holding it believes it to be so. I am not a Christian. I do not believe that J.C. was the product of a virgin birth, that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, etc. But I find many Christians to be of the opinion that I am wrong (and that I am going to burn in hell for being so, but in my estimation if I'm going to hell it'll probably be for much worse things than a simple lack of faith...) and how am I able to say that is not a valid opinion? I can't prove them wrong, and they can't prove themselves to be correct. It's perfectly valid from their point of view, even if it is not from my own.
It's possible for us all to have our opinions focused on the same world, but we can only do that by sticking to facts and using strong, but not excessive logic to reach our opinions.
Again, which facts? People too often use facts in discussions like this as if they were the holy grail of all human thought, asserting that if we could only avoid emotion and base all of our actions on pure, rational, logical decision making then everything would be alright, there would be world peace and an end to hunger blah blah blah. And then I go and wonder why many of these people think I'm some sort of starry-eyed head in the clouds idealist.
People don't think like that, people don't act like that. People make their decisions and act based on a variety of different factors, and emotion is just as important as facts and logic and whatever else you can come up with. Denying this is denying the reality of what it is to be human, and in my opinion one of the more interesting aspects of being human. Damn I'm starting to sound like Captain Kirk in a Star Trek episode...
That being said, even if we did "stick to the facts" for our decision making, I would assert that we wouldn't be "viewing the same world". What this presumes is a level of near-perfect knowledge and access to information and the ability to quickly determine what facts are germane at any given moment. Lack of facts or selective disuse of facts lead to a fracturing of that "one world".
Ahh, nostalgia: this takes me back to my historiography classes in college (as a history major).
:), but what is reported and why it's important (AKA, "spin") is. See above.
What about the census?
I think you could make an argument that the census (at least in the U.S.) is biased. In fact, there's been debate for quite a while over reforming how the census is taken because it's known that it is not accurate. Reformers generally favor using some sort of formula to "count" the people who are missed, but even that is not 100% accurate. Why does all this matter? Because there's big money involved. Federal funding for welfare, transportation, education, and lots of other programs depend on that population count, as well as political boundaries for representatives. Republicans generally favor using the actual counted number because it is more "biased" towards them while Democrats favor the adjusted numbers (those undercounted are usually lower class, ethnic minorities, and/or illegal immigrants who tend to lean Democratic). In the end, both numbers are still incorrect.
More importantly, "everything is biased" just feels like an excuse.
I wouldn't say that everything is biased, but most of the more interesting stuff is. It's pretty to argue with a statement like "The Normans invaded England in 1066", assuming that you agree on the calendar system being used. But really, who gives a shit? Why should I care about this? When you start talking about why this is important, that's when you start inserting bias.
That's why a lot of people push for teaching history in just this sort of "just the facts" way. What they tend to overlook though is that 1) It's terribly dull (and probably has a lot to do with why kids in the U.S. hate history) and 2) You don't really solve the bias problem, because you still have to choose what facts to teach - while you can probably make a good argument that it's more important to learn about William of Normandy then it is to learn about Jane Peasant, why is it important to know that Henry Ford revolutionized U.S. industry through his implementation of the assembly line but it's not important to know that he was an anti-semite and a union buster?
With that formula, all media is about deception
Some would assert that there's a fine line between information and propaganda...
Nobody is trustworthy
Define trustworthy. Seriously, what it boils down to is that you're going to have to decide for yourself who is and isn't trustworthy. This isn't really any different than in the past, all that really changes is how people decide who to trust. It used to be that kings were supposedly anointed by God; now we have the Electoral College. If you're Catholic, you probably trust your priest or the pope, if you're Jewish you probably trust your rabbi, if you're a Republican you probably trust Bush, and if you're a Democrat, well, I don't know who you trust these days. You may trust somebody because somebody else you trust gives them high marks. It works in reverse too; personally, I tend to initially distrust anybody cited by Thomas Sowell or Rush Limbaugh because I think they're boobs.
If all media is biased, all facts reported are just matters of opinion. And everybody's opinion is equal.
No, facts aren't opinions ('cause then they wouldn't be facts
Not everybody's opinion is equal, but everybody's opinion is valid, even if demonstrably untrue. Some opinions carry greater weight simply by brute force: lots of people believe it. That's how something that's not "Truth" can become "truth": because it's generally accepted to be so (think slavery, flat earth, sun revolving around the earth, etc.). I think this is the kind of thing that makes math and science types (as well as the extremely religious) queasy: when it comes to the social "sciences" (a misnomer applied in a unnecessary and misguided but good-intentioned attempt to gain a
That's not a bad position to take, in fact, I would encourage you not to contribute.
What I find insulting are the "f**king commie hippie losers begging for spare change blah blah blah" type posts that rather than stating something intelligent such as "I do not benefit from this organization's work nor do I feel that it contributes to society and therefore I will not give it any money" instead just slams them for daring to ask for money. Dude, it's called charity, it provides some resource to the community (i.e., homeless shelters, job training, clothing for the poor, trash clean ups, whatever your own pet cause is), and it asks those who can AND ARE WILLING to contribute to do so.
Donations are always a stopgap measure and aren't a substitute for a real company model -- be that business or otherwise. If advertising or merchandising is out (for ethical or whatever reasons), then they should be turning to foundations that can help with non-profit fundraising"
Having written grants and dealt with foundations, I can tell you that it's a lot harder to break into then you would think. While there is a lot of money to be given out, most foundations already have a list of organizations that they give to regularly and which comprise the bulk of their donations, and getting onto that list is not a short-term project. It can take years of building relationships, showing results, and other assorted ass-kissing. One of the things that foundations are going to look at before they're willing to give is what other sources of you have, so asking for donations from the general public is not a bad way to go, short and long term.
All that being said, I don't think you're point is without merit. What Wikimedia really needs to do is come up with a long-term financial plan instead of this piece-meal crap, hire a grant writer and start going after foundation money. But that's not going to negate the need to raise money from other sources, and it's not going to help them immediately.
What do you mean by "they"? I've edited and contributed dozens of articles to Wikipedia, corrected countless typos, and introduced new information. "I", by virtue of donating my time and energy, am part of Wikipedia, but I won't see a dime of that $20,000, and I've never gotten so much as a "thank you" for my efforts. There are a lot of us in this position.
"They" most likely refers to the Wikimedia Foundation, the official organization that pays the bills to keep the lights on so that you can volunteer your time and effort to contribute to the project. That's right, you are (or were from the sounds of it) a VOLUNTEER, and except as used in the context of the military, that usually means you don't get paid. It works the same in the online world as it does IRL. When I volunteer to pick up litter or plant trees or whatever, I don't do it expecting money. I'm sure that if they were going to pay everybody who contributed to the Wikipedia, they would have to ask for a hell of a lot more than $20,000.
As far as not getting a "thank you", on the one hand that's not a totally unreasonable gripe. Having spent a lot of time organizing work projects of various sorts for non-profits, I know that failure to praise and when possible recognize and reward those who contribute is a good way to squander morale and lose your volunteers. However, the fact that you expect it as if you have some sort of inalienable right to it is pretty fucking petty. I suggest you reassess why you would contribute time/money to a project in the first place, stop acting like a spoiled brat, and grow up.
You know what: If they are asking for that kind of money (which I don't believe they are going to spend only for the purposes they claim), I am not going to contribute money, and I am no longer going to spend contributing to Wikipedia.
I can't speak for everybody, but I wouldn't have an issue if they spent some of the money on other purposes, so long as they account for it and it is related to the project. I'm sure equipment isn't the only expense they have. In fact, I would suggest they set aside some money to work with a grant writer so that they can apply for foundation money that could better support the ongoing needs of the project.
Sure it is: it's still a free resource to those who are unable to contribute money. Sure, it's also free to the freeloaders who could contribute but won't, and if you want to you can be one of them, so long as your conscience doesn't bother you.
I do however realise that it's a free ressource and all, but nonetheless, there are other ways to sustain a site, other then asking for donations
If the product is viable, they can offer consulting for commercial installation, or they could offer a "premium" service where subscriber get access to a dedicated server, while the unwashed get to share whatever's left of the ressource,
At least in this case:
1. It's not a product, not in the way you're talking about it anyways, so I don't think providing installation services is going to be very helpful.
2. I think the idea of offering a dedicated server to subscribers and the table scraps for the unwashed is antithetical to the whole idea of the Wikipedia project. The way I see it, it's akin to the public school system (although given the quality of public schools in the U.S., I hate making this analogy as I think the Wikipedia is quite good). We all pay taxes, into the system, some more and some less according to their ability to do so, and in exchange we get a public school system that is there to serve everybody's children. And for all you anti-government tax haters, it's even better because you're not FORCED to pay into the system. It's your CHOICE whether or not to, but as long as enough people do, the system is there to serve everybody.
But if you're going to come after me for my hard earned money, you better have something to give in exchange for it.
They are. They're giving you the Wikipedia. Or is it that you're asking for something extra that nobody else (or at least those who do not donate) gets? Doesn't that go against the whole spirit of sharing and giving back to the greater community?
It's a cold way to look at it, but in this economic context, I'd rather spend on something other then someone else's website
Then go for it. Give to Habitat for Humanity or the Salvation Army or the LCV or the ACLU or the Boys and Girls Club or whatever. Or don't give any money to anybody at all. If what they are doing doesn't benefit you or your family or society in some way that you approve of, then feel free not to give them any money; there's lots of people/organizations who ask me for money that I don't contribute to for these very reasons, and you're free to do the same. But if you do use it and you do like it and you are able to contribute something but choose not to, then don't come bitching to me or anybody else when it's gone for lack of financial support. That being said, I like what they are doing and therefore my check's in the mail (f**k PayPal).
Exchange sucks IMHO
An how many people has that prevented from using it?
My guess would be that the decision to switch from using Exchange to another system might be beyond the decision making capacity of the original poster, and even if he did have the authority to do so, you might still see some resistance from the already installed userbase over switching to something new, making it easier to switch those in the minority over (i.e., good short term decision, though it doesn't help you in the long run).
Was with you all the way up to:
Wolves (and other predators) will benefit until the deer are brought into a more sane population - then they'll turn on people.
Has somebody been reading too much Little Red Riding Hood? Wolves pose little to no danger to humans and if given the opportunity and not harassed will go out of their way to avoid us. The vast majority of wildlife encounters result from people hiking and camping doing stupid things like feeding wild animals, leaving out food, toothpaste, human waste, or other such items that attract wildlife, harassing animals, etc. The remainder are a result of humans further encroaching on wildlife habitat, often repeating the above mistakes. Sorry for my lack of sympathy, but people doing shit like this probably deserve to be attacked if they can't learn a little bit of common sense.
Right now we are all still pretty much at the mercy of Hollywood to make films that we like. Very soon, the balance of power will shift and creative individuals who have lots of ideas but budgets nowhere near those of studios will be able to create some very impressive looking films. And then Hollywood will have to get their ass in gear and show us something that we couldn't do ourselves in our own living room.
While I won't defend the "quality" of most of Hollywood's mainstream products, I must say you have far more faith in the ability of the average Joe to make a quality flick than I do. I would venture that 99% of fanfics SUCK; I fear what their movies would be like.