I solved the drive space problem by getting an external drive for large files. Currently it has mostly backups, but it also has my extensive video collection (DVD backups, etc.) and software ISOs. Dual displays can be faked by using the laptop itself as the second display, although that's not as pretty.
Note that at the time (1994 to 1995 if memory serves me, although it could have been slightly earlier or later), Netscape's statement didn't look anything like as bone-headed as they do in retrospect.
Were web browsers considered difficult to develop? If you want to base your dominance of the future market on developing software, at least make it difficult software, like an operating system.
For awhile there was an inevitable reply, something like "Mod parent up, parent post is actually an insightful metaphor about the article", but it got old. My favorite, BTW, is the lesbian Seinfeld fanfiction.
Indeed; I'm somewhat amused that this is described as a "minor" security flaw in the summary and blamed on the user interface. If it was a Microsoft web site it would be described as a major flaw and the foaming at the mouth would begin.
Thank god we have you to disabuse us of that notion. Oh, wait--nearly every article about any flaw in Apple products has someone like you complaining about the hypocrisy.
With the approval of the author of a well-known open-source program, I posted information about how to use the program. Next day that contribution was gone, removed by someone who said that Wikipedia should not become a place for software manuals. But my explanation was the clearest, most complete available at the time; the author of the software did not want to spend time re-writing his own manual.
Obviously the optimal solution was for your writeup to have become (part of?) the new manual.
The actual issue has more to do with formatting than anything. If most of the information in that "trivia" section was refactored into prose there would be no problem with it being presented that way. I mean, imagine if the article on Pervez Musharraf had a trivia section with entries like: "A survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow shows that Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than Musharraf." Not very informative. The actual prose section reads as follows: "However, more recent surveys shows that Musharraf's popularity has further decreased. A survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow shows that Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than Musharraf. According to poll results, Bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. [92].
In an effort to boost his falling popularity ratings in an election year, Musharraf will be a regular guest star on a state-sponsored Q&A show titled From the President's House.[93] The show will be aired weekly on PTV and partly or wholly on some private channels." Much better.
One of the things that made the Internet successful was the sheer amount of information. Wikipedia is a quality control mechanism--otherwise, why not use it to mirror the entire internet, by your logic?
No criterion for who is and is not permitted to edit Wikipedia are provided.
You could say that everyone starts off with the privilege of editing Wikipedia. Willy on Wheels and Guantanamo Guy abused the privilege and lost it. But it's really a bad slogan.
Again that's your opinion. You interpret it your way and I'll interpret it as people who really like the trivia sections and absolutely DO NOT want them removed. Not all of us aspire to having a "Featured Article".
Given that my opinion is based on experience and that yours is based on furthering your own ignorant point, I'll choose mine.
Yeah, how strange of me to think that you and I are having a conversation but that in reality, you are talking to some hypothetical inclusionists that apparently wants everything in. And don't even pretend that your statement about "crapflood" wasn't directed at me. If you are no longer addressing me, please tell me now. So I won't have to worry about how you once heard that inclusionists support the killing of puppies and that they hate rainbows. Because for the record, I love rainbows and am against killing puppies.
My examples were given with the purpose of explaining where the deletionist viewpoint comes from. And on many of the issues you point out (webcomics for instance), the skepticism that comes from this experience is exactly what causes the deletionist reaction you complain about.
When it comes to open source, Wikipedia, or donating blood, I am fully aware that there is a great deal of possible rejection or modification involved that are beyond my control. The Blood Bank has very strict rules on who can donate and there's about 30 questions and many additional tests that may get you excluded. Those rules are fair, protect the blood supply, and are made clear to everyone before the first drop is extracted. But if one day, they were to say to me, "We don't want the blood of Colored people anymore, but please keep donating money," you can be assured this would be the last time I gave them either blood or money.
I would think, with all your railing against straw men fallacies, that you wouldn't commit one now. Wikipedia has never discriminated against contributors based upon their race.
But when it gets deleted, there is only one possible interpretation. "Your work doesn't belong here. It's not worthy of our project." Well, if that's what you think, then you can go to hell.
See? Right there. You think your work is getting deleted because we think we're too good for it. Your feelings, I submit, are hurt. There it is, and at once all your doubletalk has collapsed.
lot of work was done before these decisions about deletions were made. Do deletionists really believe that they can remove possibly hundreds of man hours of work with a few quotes and not generate a lot of anger? Again, forget the company shill, the teenagers screwing around, the garage band. I want you to imagine someone who is a fan of a particular webcomic that's not the author or anyone who has a financial interest in it. He writes a comprehensive and "web" referenced article, and it gets voted to be speedily deleted because it is accused of being non-notable and support votes are discounted as socks.
Yes, I'm sure that person gets his feelings hurt. Incidentally, please point out one AFD discussion (give me the Wikipedia link) where the support votes were misidentified as socks. And give me, once again, the reason why an open source project's community's decision about which contributions to include should be decided by people outside that community (or people who join that community simply to influence the "vote" over inclusion).
Related to the above, those rules haven't been applied fairly and consistently. Not only do many find the deletion arguments elitist, but with all the scandals with cabals and abusive admins, there is a sense that this is more about wielding power than any sincere attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Now, obviously this is much more egregious and I'm not accusing you of being a part of it or defending it(or whether you think it exists at all). But many think this is happening.
Absolutely. If Wikipedia (or any other wiki) was out there specifically for whistleblowers without some sort of controls, then the actual whistleblowing would be lost in the crapflood of schizophrenics, bored kids, conspiracy theorists, and communists.
I realize that you don't think much of our government, but without it, you wouldn't have roads to drive on, food to eat, schools to attend, a house to live in or a life to live.
Considering the quality of American roads, food, and schools, I would not be so quick to jump to that argument.
China doesn't have prisoners the same way Iran doesn't have homosexuals. If we used the death penalty as liberally as China we wouldn't have very many prisoners either.
A civilian who takes down their varmint rifle, from above their mantle, when their property is invaded by their country's invaders, will still be considered a "lawful combatant", under the Geneva Conventions, provided they carry arms openly, and otherwise obeys the laws and conventions of war. Feel free to look it up for yourself.
Unfortunately that's impossible. Insurgents are outside the laws of war by necessity. Let's look at the very issue here: taking prisoners. You think the French Resistance took prisoners? How? They operated from secret bases (and couldn't allow them to be discovered), barely had the resources to feed themselves to say nothing of feeding prisoners, etc. There is a hole in the law here, but the hole shouldn't be exploited the way it is at Guantanamo.
Now I'm not defending the Russian Government, but the extraordinary rendition policy of the US, the detention of people in violation of the Geneva convention and the invasion of a country on a false premise and without a UN mandate sounds exactly the same sort of scale as what Russia gets up to.
Maybe if we did it to Keith Olbermann or Noam Chomsky. America has always been barbaric to foreigners, the difference is that at least we've had the loyalty to avoid doing such things to our own people.
Honestly, the idea from TOS was always that transporters were magic and while we're at it let's use them to investigate the nature of good and evil, and if that means using a transporter accident to create an evil Kirk who drinks Dr. McCoy's saurian brandy and tries to rape Yeoman Rand so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
I solved the drive space problem by getting an external drive for large files. Currently it has mostly backups, but it also has my extensive video collection (DVD backups, etc.) and software ISOs. Dual displays can be faked by using the laptop itself as the second display, although that's not as pretty.
Were web browsers considered difficult to develop? If you want to base your dominance of the future market on developing software, at least make it difficult software, like an operating system.
And when the idiots buying Google stock realize what it's actually worth and the correction occurs, things will even out.
For awhile there was an inevitable reply, something like "Mod parent up, parent post is actually an insightful metaphor about the article", but it got old. My favorite, BTW, is the lesbian Seinfeld fanfiction.
Their entire management team. Jobs et. al. only took charge in 1997. Mac OS X came out in 2001 after years of development under the new management.
Thank god we have you to disabuse us of that notion. Oh, wait--nearly every article about any flaw in Apple products has someone like you complaining about the hypocrisy.
Obviously the optimal solution was for your writeup to have become (part of?) the new manual.
The actual issue has more to do with formatting than anything. If most of the information in that "trivia" section was refactored into prose there would be no problem with it being presented that way. I mean, imagine if the article on Pervez Musharraf had a trivia section with entries like: "A survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow shows that Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than Musharraf." Not very informative. The actual prose section reads as follows: "However, more recent surveys shows that Musharraf's popularity has further decreased. A survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow shows that Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than Musharraf. According to poll results, Bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. [92]. In an effort to boost his falling popularity ratings in an election year, Musharraf will be a regular guest star on a state-sponsored Q&A show titled From the President's House.[93] The show will be aired weekly on PTV and partly or wholly on some private channels." Much better.
One of the things that made the Internet successful was the sheer amount of information. Wikipedia is a quality control mechanism--otherwise, why not use it to mirror the entire internet, by your logic?
Does it include proofs about predicate logic? If not it's not fundamental enough. (I kid not--I took a class in metalogic.)
Sure they do. They're just cowards who are unwilling to be stationed in prison instead.
You could say that everyone starts off with the privilege of editing Wikipedia. Willy on Wheels and Guantanamo Guy abused the privilege and lost it. But it's really a bad slogan.
Again that's your opinion. You interpret it your way and I'll interpret it as people who really like the trivia sections and absolutely DO NOT want them removed. Not all of us aspire to having a "Featured Article".
Given that my opinion is based on experience and that yours is based on furthering your own ignorant point, I'll choose mine.
Yeah, how strange of me to think that you and I are having a conversation but that in reality, you are talking to some hypothetical inclusionists that apparently wants everything in. And don't even pretend that your statement about "crapflood" wasn't directed at me. If you are no longer addressing me, please tell me now. So I won't have to worry about how you once heard that inclusionists support the killing of puppies and that they hate rainbows. Because for the record, I love rainbows and am against killing puppies.
My examples were given with the purpose of explaining where the deletionist viewpoint comes from. And on many of the issues you point out (webcomics for instance), the skepticism that comes from this experience is exactly what causes the deletionist reaction you complain about.
When it comes to open source, Wikipedia, or donating blood, I am fully aware that there is a great deal of possible rejection or modification involved that are beyond my control. The Blood Bank has very strict rules on who can donate and there's about 30 questions and many additional tests that may get you excluded. Those rules are fair, protect the blood supply, and are made clear to everyone before the first drop is extracted. But if one day, they were to say to me, "We don't want the blood of Colored people anymore, but please keep donating money," you can be assured this would be the last time I gave them either blood or money.
I would think, with all your railing against straw men fallacies, that you wouldn't commit one now. Wikipedia has never discriminated against contributors based upon their race.
But when it gets deleted, there is only one possible interpretation. "Your work doesn't belong here. It's not worthy of our project." Well, if that's what you think, then you can go to hell.
See? Right there. You think your work is getting deleted because we think we're too good for it. Your feelings, I submit, are hurt. There it is, and at once all your doubletalk has collapsed.
lot of work was done before these decisions about deletions were made. Do deletionists really believe that they can remove possibly hundreds of man hours of work with a few quotes and not generate a lot of anger? Again, forget the company shill, the teenagers screwing around, the garage band. I want you to imagine someone who is a fan of a particular webcomic that's not the author or anyone who has a financial interest in it. He writes a comprehensive and "web" referenced article, and it gets voted to be speedily deleted because it is accused of being non-notable and support votes are discounted as socks.
Yes, I'm sure that person gets his feelings hurt. Incidentally, please point out one AFD discussion (give me the Wikipedia link) where the support votes were misidentified as socks. And give me, once again, the reason why an open source project's community's decision about which contributions to include should be decided by people outside that community (or people who join that community simply to influence the "vote" over inclusion).
Related to the above, those rules haven't been applied fairly and consistently. Not only do many find the deletion arguments elitist, but with all the scandals with cabals and abusive admins, there is a sense that this is more about wielding power than any sincere attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Now, obviously this is much more egregious and I'm not accusing you of being a part of it or defending it(or whether you think it exists at all). But many think this is happening.
Absolutely. If Wikipedia (or any other wiki) was out there specifically for whistleblowers without some sort of controls, then the actual whistleblowing would be lost in the crapflood of schizophrenics, bored kids, conspiracy theorists, and communists.
Considering the quality of American roads, food, and schools, I would not be so quick to jump to that argument.
Yeah, and Bell Labs invented the transistor, but that doesn't mean AT&T gets the right to dictate what I do with mine.
The Supreme Court got rid of that recently.
China doesn't have prisoners the same way Iran doesn't have homosexuals. If we used the death penalty as liberally as China we wouldn't have very many prisoners either.
Seriously, I've heard the same argument against reporting US atrocities in war. My response is the same as yours: don't commit the atrocities.
Unfortunately that's impossible. Insurgents are outside the laws of war by necessity. Let's look at the very issue here: taking prisoners. You think the French Resistance took prisoners? How? They operated from secret bases (and couldn't allow them to be discovered), barely had the resources to feed themselves to say nothing of feeding prisoners, etc. There is a hole in the law here, but the hole shouldn't be exploited the way it is at Guantanamo.
Terrorists?
Yeah, so they're raised by three people instead of just two. Again I don't see the advantage.
Maybe if we did it to Keith Olbermann or Noam Chomsky. America has always been barbaric to foreigners, the difference is that at least we've had the loyalty to avoid doing such things to our own people.
A nanny is just a surrogate parent so there's no real advantage there.
Pre-school and daycare may just be necessary for kids to grow up to be something better than the introverted nerds we slashdotters have become.Hey, people like us built the internet and the space program. There are worse ways to end up.
Honestly, the idea from TOS was always that transporters were magic and while we're at it let's use them to investigate the nature of good and evil, and if that means using a transporter accident to create an evil Kirk who drinks Dr. McCoy's saurian brandy and tries to rape Yeoman Rand so be it.