What, cities requiring businesses and professionals to have permits before they're allowed to tie up public property for their own pet projects? Cities not allowing you to block a sidewalk or a street without working out some of the logistics (and, potentially, the expense of dedicating law enforcement people just to babysit your money-making venture on taxpayer-owned property)?
more ranting...
Here's an idea: if you're not just a tourist taking snapshots, just go get the freakin' permit and show a little respect for the peope whose city you want to leverage for your project. If you are a tourist taking snapshots, or an artist that wants to set up a tripod in that crowded public space, go for it.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you had read the article. This is what it states:
"The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction."
Note that it isn't limited to commercial operators.
..."free speech zones" response.
Actually, no. There are a number of cases where those who wore protest t-shirts were restricted to these "free speech zones". The whole idea of such zones, incidently, is ridiculous given that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The whole damn country is a free-speech zone!
Where, exactly, do you see any mention of photographers being forbidden to take photos?
Again I am suprised. I thought that you'd read the article. Silly me.
"New rules being considered by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance."
In that case, stop whinging and, well, use a proper edit summary. Then note on the talk page what you've done. Not a particularly hard thing to do now, is it?
I am an adminstrator and have contacted SlimVirgin personally on a number of occasions. I can safely say that she is NOT part of any cabal or an spy network. Sheesh.
What sort of stupid story is this? I can't believe Slashdot was so stupid to publish it.
"Many very stupid companies have tried to come up with overly clever ways to speed up TCP/IP. TCP, by its nature, is a stateful and bidirectional protocol that requires all data packets to be acknowledged; this makes the data flow reliable, by providing a mechanism for dropped packets to be retransmitted; but this also makes for a more strictly regimented flow structure involving more packets transmitted over the wire than in simpler, non-reliable protocols like UDP-- and therefore it's slower. One company that thought itself a lot smarter than it really was, called RunTCP, came up with the idea of "pre-acking" TCP packets; it would send out the acknowledgments for a whole pile of data packets in advance, thus freeing them from the onerous necessity of double-checking that each packet actually got there properly. And it worked great, speeding up TCP flows by a significant margin-- in the lab, under ideal test conditions. The minute you put RunTCP's products out onto the real Internet, everything stopped working. Which stands to reason-- their "solution" was to tear out all the infrastructure that made TCP work reliably, under competing load and in adverse conditions, in the first place. Dumbasses."
I wonder exactly what the data would be like if you compared vulnerabilities in 3rd-party software AND Microsoft issues vs. security problems in Linux distributions?
Actually, there are significant reasons why it would piss them off. Before you tell someone to grow up, best to do this yourself. The main reason not to like advertising is that people have a reasonable fear that the NPOV policy would become diluted by advertisers editing their own articles or articles related to them to make themselves or their products look better.
Maybe. However, I doubt that will happen on Wikipedia. Many editors are working away on their articles, and to be honest they don't really care about Citzendium or other projects. Not many people are even mentioning Citzendium on the project from what I can tell, and I do a fair amount of contribution to the project.
Look, I'd appreciate a good essay that shows me why Wikipedia is failing. However, the assumptions on the failing essay are that all articles that aren't featured are crap or mediocre and that FA article quality declines over time. It assumes that 1.6 millions articles are terrible, and 3,000 are very good. It assumes that featured articles get worse over time. Sure, that sometimes happens, but rarely in my view. What has happened is that FAC has become more discerning when it comes to quality, and FA article sthat used to be seen as FA quality no longer reach that standard as the standard has risen - not that the article has decreased in quality! When seen in this light, it makes many of these assertions look pretty dopey really.
The open questions, by the way, are either misleading or the wrong questions to be asking.
Out of interest, have you checked your facts? There are certainly a number of paid employees (I think it's about 4 or 5). There are no paid administrators, and there are over 500 of them on the site last I checked. I should point out that not all administrators know (or indeed should know) about subnetting or CIDR, and mistakes can be made.
As Jimbo said, move along here, nothing to be seen.
Did you significantly contribute to one or more featured articles, or at least make the attempt? Or perhaps you helped with cleanup or a backlog of tasks. I would say that makes you valuable. For the later, the more edits made the more valuable you will be to the project, for the former it's not so important because writing one featured article is equivalent to hundreds or even thousands of minor edits.
There needs to be a way of stopping people gaming the voting system. It would not be hard for someone to create multiple accounts and vote if it were not for these measures. How else would you stop abuse of the system?
If you are no longer contributing, then your voice still won't be heard. Reputation on Wikipedia is immensley important. That makes sense: why would policy decisions be made by those who haven't proven they understand the goals of the project or those who don't have a track record of improving the site by contributing articles?
And to make it crystal clear what this means: if you log in as a sock puppet/normal user noone will be able to track you down by your IP address except for, of course, David Gerard:-) If Brian Chase (the Seigenthaler vandal) had registered an account, he never would have been tracked down by Daniel Brandt.
We could apply semi-protection, but at the same time you should have seen the article about the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Speculation was rife with, at one point, a edit coming in every 1-2 seconds. However, by now we have a very factual and very informative article. It's not always good to place semi-protection on a rapidly evolving article.
I think the bottom line, which everyone has so far missed, is that you should be checking your sources on Wikipedia before trusting it completely. I know I do, and I'm an administrator on the project.
Also remember that there is a "Cite this article" option, that gives various citation methods. Say for instance you want to cite the article "Velociraptor". Click on the "Cite this article" link to give these sort of details in a prepackaged form.
Slashdot Mirror
I would tend to agree with "But when pushed, even those of us that are fat and comfortable will fight to stay free."
I see a lot more political action in the U.S. than I do in Australia!
more ranting...
Here's an idea: if you're not just a tourist taking snapshots, just go get the freakin' permit and show a little respect for the peope whose city you want to leverage for your project. If you are a tourist taking snapshots, or an artist that wants to set up a tripod in that crowded public space, go for it.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you had read the article. This is what it states:
"The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction."
Note that it isn't limited to commercial operators.
Actually, no. There are a number of cases where those who wore protest t-shirts were restricted to these "free speech zones". The whole idea of such zones, incidently, is ridiculous given that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The whole damn country is a free-speech zone!
Where, exactly, do you see any mention of photographers being forbidden to take photos?
Again I am suprised. I thought that you'd read the article. Silly me.
"New rules being considered by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance."
If this takes off in the States, how long before the nimrods in Australian government decide to follow suit?
It's amazing: first "free speech zones", then forbidding photographers from taking photos? Has the U.S. gone nuts?
In that case, stop whinging and, well, use a proper edit summary. Then note on the talk page what you've done. Not a particularly hard thing to do now, is it?
I am an adminstrator and have contacted SlimVirgin personally on a number of occasions. I can safely say that she is NOT part of any cabal or an spy network. Sheesh.
What sort of stupid story is this? I can't believe Slashdot was so stupid to publish it.
It has a trivia section. Sloppy work!
Perhaps you could design a Blackdot?
If I could score you higher than 5, I would.
... the the more they stay the same. And I quote:
"Many very stupid companies have tried to come up with overly clever ways to speed up TCP/IP. TCP, by its nature, is a stateful and bidirectional protocol that requires all data packets to be acknowledged; this makes the data flow reliable, by providing a mechanism for dropped packets to be retransmitted; but this also makes for a more strictly regimented flow structure involving more packets transmitted over the wire than in simpler, non-reliable protocols like UDP-- and therefore it's slower. One company that thought itself a lot smarter than it really was, called RunTCP, came up with the idea of "pre-acking" TCP packets; it would send out the acknowledgments for a whole pile of data packets in advance, thus freeing them from the onerous necessity of double-checking that each packet actually got there properly. And it worked great, speeding up TCP flows by a significant margin-- in the lab, under ideal test conditions. The minute you put RunTCP's products out onto the real Internet, everything stopped working. Which stands to reason-- their "solution" was to tear out all the infrastructure that made TCP work reliably, under competing load and in adverse conditions, in the first place. Dumbasses."
Control sounds dodgy.
I wonder exactly what the data would be like if you compared vulnerabilities in 3rd-party software AND Microsoft issues vs. security problems in Linux distributions?
Actually, there are significant reasons why it would piss them off. Before you tell someone to grow up, best to do this yourself. The main reason not to like advertising is that people have a reasonable fear that the NPOV policy would become diluted by advertisers editing their own articles or articles related to them to make themselves or their products look better.
Maybe. However, I doubt that will happen on Wikipedia. Many editors are working away on their articles, and to be honest they don't really care about Citzendium or other projects. Not many people are even mentioning Citzendium on the project from what I can tell, and I do a fair amount of contribution to the project.
Look, I'd appreciate a good essay that shows me why Wikipedia is failing. However, the assumptions on the failing essay are that all articles that aren't featured are crap or mediocre and that FA article quality declines over time. It assumes that 1.6 millions articles are terrible, and 3,000 are very good. It assumes that featured articles get worse over time. Sure, that sometimes happens, but rarely in my view. What has happened is that FAC has become more discerning when it comes to quality, and FA article sthat used to be seen as FA quality no longer reach that standard as the standard has risen - not that the article has decreased in quality! When seen in this light, it makes many of these assertions look pretty dopey really.
The open questions, by the way, are either misleading or the wrong questions to be asking.
Out of interest, have you checked your facts? There are certainly a number of paid employees (I think it's about 4 or 5). There are no paid administrators, and there are over 500 of them on the site last I checked. I should point out that not all administrators know (or indeed should know) about subnetting or CIDR, and mistakes can be made.
As Jimbo said, move along here, nothing to be seen.
Lilo always helped us out on #wikipedia, and popped in quite frequently. Terrible news :-(
Did you significantly contribute to one or more featured articles, or at least make the attempt? Or perhaps you helped with cleanup or a backlog of tasks. I would say that makes you valuable. For the later, the more edits made the more valuable you will be to the project, for the former it's not so important because writing one featured article is equivalent to hundreds or even thousands of minor edits.
There needs to be a way of stopping people gaming the voting system. It would not be hard for someone to create multiple accounts and vote if it were not for these measures. How else would you stop abuse of the system?
If you are no longer contributing, then your voice still won't be heard. Reputation on Wikipedia is immensley important. That makes sense: why would policy decisions be made by those who haven't proven they understand the goals of the project or those who don't have a track record of improving the site by contributing articles?
And to make it crystal clear what this means: if you log in as a sock puppet/normal user noone will be able to track you down by your IP address except for, of course, David Gerard :-) If Brian Chase (the Seigenthaler vandal) had registered an account, he never would have been tracked down by Daniel Brandt.
We could apply semi-protection, but at the same time you should have seen the article about the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Speculation was rife with, at one point, a edit coming in every 1-2 seconds. However, by now we have a very factual and very informative article. It's not always good to place semi-protection on a rapidly evolving article.
I think the bottom line, which everyone has so far missed, is that you should be checking your sources on Wikipedia before trusting it completely. I know I do, and I'm an administrator on the project.
Exactly.
Also remember that there is a "Cite this article" option, that gives various citation methods. Say for instance you want to cite the article "Velociraptor". Click on the "Cite this article" link to give these sort of details in a prepackaged form.
.... the EB, overall, is fairly current.
Yes, well. You'd also see a drop off in contributions, something that isn't very good for the project.