You're not the only skeptic. I've found so many instances of vandalism and factual errors (however innocent) in subjects of which I already have a passing knowledge, I shudder to think of how much misinformation I'd pick up trying to learn about anything I'm not familiar with... which sort of defeats the point of an encyclopedia, doesn't it?
Oh jeez, your first paragraph sounds exactly like the familiar whine of would-be Marxists: "No state on this planet has even approached true, unfettered Communism/Socialism/Marxism, so who are you to say it would be a failure?" This claim is not only bizarre; it also sort of misses the point.
And as for your second point, did you read my parent poster? He/she said regulation should be done away with, because the free market eventually provides for all. Key word is eventually. In the meantime, people get ripped off, and since we agree (I think we agree, right?) that what we'll end up with is basically a system of "blanket regulation" under a different name, why suffer needlessly?
My parent post seemed to be advocating the abolition of truth-in-advertising laws on the grounds that the free market will evolve a similar infrastructure on its own, given time. This may be true, but the problem I wanted to point out is if we all agree it's going to happen, we could just implement it now and spend our energies elsewhere. Because while our economy is spending decades, even centuries getting its act together, other economies--with an intelligent infrastructure for economic development already in place--will be speeding ahead.
In other words: In the long run, we evolve something similar to the system of truth-in-advertising laws and enforcement mechanisms we already have today. Which is fine--if you can afford to wait that long. After all, in the short run, we're all dead.
No, they still sell heros for $2 (a real bargain in a town that can sell an $800 burger!). If they raise the price, they should change the advertisement outside. It's that simple.
Thanks, Ayn. I'll see your hypothetical and raise you this: If you live in a country without adequate consumer-protection laws, how many times will you get burned before you decide to move to a place where you have legal protections against this sort of stuff?
Libertarian paradises, where they have existed, have tended to be almost as horrible places to live as communist paradises. People don't just vote with their wallets; they vote with their feet too.
But a website is "iterative" too; you have to keep paying (monthly or yearly, in most cases) to keep it up. So in that sense it does require effort to maintain.
And I'm not even sure your test (maintenance effort) is a good one. Consider this. Around the corner from where I live is a deli that's been around since the 50s. On the brick wall facing the street, there's stenciled lettering promising heros for $2. When they raise the price, why shouldn't they have to change the mural too? "Because it isn't iterative" isn't a good reason, IMO.
I can't help you, nor can I add anything to the discussion, but I thought I'd act on my Macbot impulses and point out that OS X includes Chinese text input (both Simplified and Traditional) right out of the box.
Leo, you brighten my day, really you do... but I have to ask, from whence comes such bitterness, such contempt for your fellow man, to supply your good geyser of bile?
I'll agree that it's bloated and fat, but you do know the MTA receives less government money (percentagewise, state and federal combined) than just about any other major rail network on the planet, right?
Bureaucratic blunders, such as the drastically overbudget renovation of MTA headquarters in downtown Brooklyn, and the reluctance to open the West Side railyard to competitive bidding, certainly don't help. But perhaps if rail, and other predominantly urban modes of transit, were subsidized to the same lavish extent that Washington subsidizes highways, and other predominantly rural excesses, then we'd see WiFi on commuter trains--not to mention a Second Avenue Subway, electronic signaling, a 7 line extension to the West Side, . . . . .
I can't believe you're comparing Think Secret's leaking product plans for the next Macworld Expo to Bob Woodward's exposing corruption and conspiracy in the Nixon-era White House.
Get real. Think Secret's protection of its source is far, far, far from being in the national public interest, and any judge with a brain will factor that into his or her decision.
Another article on itfacts.biz summarizes a study from a reputable, named source (Gartner) that applies to the installed base of desktop OSes, the topic of our discussion, with the conclusion that desktop Linux currently amounts to less than half the installed base of Mac OS computers (mid-2004 projection).
Notwithstanding the fact that the page you link to (1) fails to name a source or explain its methodology, and (2) has nothing to do with desktop Linux installed base (as opposed to growth), the very same page links to a Gartner report that states: "By the end of the year [2004], Linux will be running on 1% of the desktop PC's worldwide, compared with 2.8% for Apple MacOS, and 96% for Microsoft Windows."
Slashdot Mirror
You're not the only skeptic. I've found so many instances of vandalism and factual errors (however innocent) in subjects of which I already have a passing knowledge, I shudder to think of how much misinformation I'd pick up trying to learn about anything I'm not familiar with... which sort of defeats the point of an encyclopedia, doesn't it?
Oh jeez, your first paragraph sounds exactly like the familiar whine of would-be Marxists: "No state on this planet has even approached true, unfettered Communism/Socialism/Marxism, so who are you to say it would be a failure?" This claim is not only bizarre; it also sort of misses the point.
And as for your second point, did you read my parent poster? He/she said regulation should be done away with, because the free market eventually provides for all. Key word is eventually. In the meantime, people get ripped off, and since we agree (I think we agree, right?) that what we'll end up with is basically a system of "blanket regulation" under a different name, why suffer needlessly?
My parent post seemed to be advocating the abolition of truth-in-advertising laws on the grounds that the free market will evolve a similar infrastructure on its own, given time. This may be true, but the problem I wanted to point out is if we all agree it's going to happen, we could just implement it now and spend our energies elsewhere. Because while our economy is spending decades, even centuries getting its act together, other economies--with an intelligent infrastructure for economic development already in place--will be speeding ahead.
In other words: In the long run, we evolve something similar to the system of truth-in-advertising laws and enforcement mechanisms we already have today. Which is fine--if you can afford to wait that long. After all, in the short run, we're all dead.
No, they still sell heros for $2 (a real bargain in a town that can sell an $800 burger!). If they raise the price, they should change the advertisement outside. It's that simple.
Thanks, Ayn. I'll see your hypothetical and raise you this: If you live in a country without adequate consumer-protection laws, how many times will you get burned before you decide to move to a place where you have legal protections against this sort of stuff?
Libertarian paradises, where they have existed, have tended to be almost as horrible places to live as communist paradises. People don't just vote with their wallets; they vote with their feet too.
But a website is "iterative" too; you have to keep paying (monthly or yearly, in most cases) to keep it up. So in that sense it does require effort to maintain.
And I'm not even sure your test (maintenance effort) is a good one. Consider this. Around the corner from where I live is a deli that's been around since the 50s. On the brick wall facing the street, there's stenciled lettering promising heros for $2. When they raise the price, why shouldn't they have to change the mural too? "Because it isn't iterative" isn't a good reason, IMO.
It might help answer your question if you could decide between "comerica," "coamerica" and "coameric."
So did John Kerry. Alas.
What's that article got to do with draft-dodging?
Who cares? Mac OS X Mail.app does this already. It's just like iTunes.
Apparently. Sorry I'm a moron.
There's fans of Le Tigs on Slashdot?
Touché. I still wish people could suppress the urge to post comments like this, this, this, and this, the supercilious jackasses.
Oh really? Three other people posted substantially the same obnoxious comment in reply to the original post. "You still see ads? Wow, you suck!"
Fucking retards, all of you.
That supposed to be witty?
I can't help you, nor can I add anything to the discussion, but I thought I'd act on my Macbot impulses and point out that OS X includes Chinese text input (both Simplified and Traditional) right out of the box.
How does it feel to be an annoying, predictable Slashbot?
Well... yeah. That's just because everyone who's anyone lives here. :)
Leo, you brighten my day, really you do... but I have to ask, from whence comes such bitterness, such contempt for your fellow man, to supply your good geyser of bile?
I'll agree that it's bloated and fat, but you do know the MTA receives less government money (percentagewise, state and federal combined) than just about any other major rail network on the planet, right?
Bureaucratic blunders, such as the drastically overbudget renovation of MTA headquarters in downtown Brooklyn, and the reluctance to open the West Side railyard to competitive bidding, certainly don't help. But perhaps if rail, and other predominantly urban modes of transit, were subsidized to the same lavish extent that Washington subsidizes highways, and other predominantly rural excesses, then we'd see WiFi on commuter trains--not to mention a Second Avenue Subway, electronic signaling, a 7 line extension to the West Side, . . . . .
I can't believe you're comparing Think Secret's leaking product plans for the next Macworld Expo to Bob Woodward's exposing corruption and conspiracy in the Nixon-era White House.
Get real. Think Secret's protection of its source is far, far, far from being in the national public interest, and any judge with a brain will factor that into his or her decision.
Another article on itfacts.biz summarizes a study from a reputable, named source (Gartner) that applies to the installed base of desktop OSes, the topic of our discussion, with the conclusion that desktop Linux currently amounts to less than half the installed base of Mac OS computers (mid-2004 projection).
Notwithstanding the fact that the page you link to (1) fails to name a source or explain its methodology, and (2) has nothing to do with desktop Linux installed base (as opposed to growth), the very same page links to a Gartner report that states: "By the end of the year [2004], Linux will be running on 1% of the desktop PC's worldwide, compared with 2.8% for Apple MacOS, and 96% for Microsoft Windows."
Sorry that you're delusional.
c|net: Silicon Valley votes with its wallet (search for "apple" and "microsoft")
Flamebait, here I come!