Your post confuses me. For quite some time after Wikipedia got big, Wales tried to downplay the role that Sanger had in Wikipedia, specifically choosing not to refer to him as a "cofounder". That was historical revisionism.
And I don't find anything horrifically disingenuous about Sanger describing himself as the Wikipedia guy rather than the Citizendium guy. I am confident that Elon Musk does not introduce himself as having worked on a late-90s project to transfer money wirelessly between Palm Pilot devices (which was the original business plan for Paypal, the company that made him rich).
On the other hand, this is obvious spam that does not even acknowledge the existence of Wikinews, which is as much a "Wikipedia for news" as it is possible for something to be.
While I am sympathetic to your point in general, I am not clear on how it applies to this particular submission. staticflickr.com is the domain that Flickr serves images from; presumably the submitter uploaded the images to Flickr so they would be on a solid host, and then used them in the submission. I doubt Flickr cares if he is increasing their traffic numbers.
In reality, the implementation of a modern x86 CPU does not (and has not for years now) look anything like a 386. The chips have a chunk of decoder logic that translates x86 instructions into the processor's own internal instructions ("micro-ops"). I believe it was AMD that made the point a few years ago: that decoder logic doesn't get much more complex over time, and therefore (by the magic of process shrinks and increasing transistor counts) actually gets cheaper over time. At this point it's basically a trivial cost, other than the design work to make sure the decoder works. IIRC Intel has made similar statements.
So basically this statement makes me wonder how much the author actually knows about the CPU business.
Or do you'll believe that if they achieve another few order of magnitude of frequency, suddenly they'll drain the entire market of all it's value in a single day?
In the 2010 "flash crash", the Dow Jones Industrial Average temporarily lost over 9% of its valuation in minutes. This was essentially due to high-frequency trading algorithms driving down the valuation of Proctor & Gamble. The behavior of the automated systems was so rapid and so poorly-designed that they were able to cause the price of the stock to plunge dramatically before anyone could react. When people did react, it was with panic and confusion. And all because of a basically trivial trigger event. If you make the systems even faster, that sure won't serve to make them any smarter.
Let's not pretend that the HFT systems are some benign force. They can, have, and will cause significant damage to the market. It is madness that we have not yet tamed them with meaningful regulations.
They are sticking to PHP. What they are changing is the language used by templates (the system that allows reuse of text, but has grown to provide all programmatic features available to editors). The current templating system is at least part of what you accurately describe as "obscure server-side behaviour".
As it stands right now, "plain" templates that just insert some text or whatever are not too bad. But templates that do anything more complex, especially if they require the use of ParserFunctions, quickly become a nightmare to write and matinain. Hopefully Lua will be better. I can't imagine it being much worse.
Because the surviving Beatles, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison's family have collectively opposed making the Beatles' catalog available on any such service. They were slow to jump to CDs as well. It has nothing particularly to do with Apple (the computer company).
Suppose that such a cooling trend were to occur mainly because of Cap and Trade and friends, but sunspot activity coincidentally changed over the same period. How loudly do you think certain individuals would declare that it was all sunspots all along?
Or perhaps it is only the people that disagree with you that can be irrational fools.
He didn't say that the Wii was as capable as its peers, he said that it was as capable as the best gaming systems around several years ago when we were getting games like Unreal Tournament 2004. Don't mis-quote and then dispute - That's cheating (i.e. strawman).
TFA is about the Wii being less capable than its peers, so it sounds like your complaint should be with the great-grandparent. Nobody was misquoted, the grandparent just directly challenged the great-grandparent's attempt to minimize the importance of what TFA is about (and blaim the publishers instead).
Well since they've offered it to the highest bidder, notionally some third party could offer $bignumber for the data and then use it for this sort of purpose. Of course that doesn't seem terribly likely, the SMS cost data (and therefore the analysis) would be seen as tainted, and the hackers could still decide to also provide the data to some or all of the other bidders...
It's not clear what point, if any, you are trying to make here.
TFA is about Google using humans to improve its results, in a few ways.
Wolfram Alpha derives all of its results from a database that is curated by humans.
There are major differences in their approaches (as indeed there are major differences in what they are trying to accomplish), but the general notion of involving human beings to improve your results is the same.
Because major multinational Joe-Blow, Inc., is not comfortable buying joe-blow.tld1 and letting whoever wants to buy joe-blow.tld2, which they could use in a way that damages Joe-Blow's reputation. There is some legal recourse to that, depending on the specifics, but that takes time and is anything but guaranteed. Why risk it? So most large companies (and indeed, many smaller companies) just buy a bunch of permutations of their domain name, including different TLDs and common misspellings. They will generally ignore ccTLDs (of which there are over 250) except maybe the one for their own country, but will often buy several or all of the no-restrictions gTLDs (.com,.net,.org, and if they feel like it.biz,.info, and maybe the others). ICANN is moving toward creating more gTLDs.
So in effect, increasing the supply of gTLDs stands to artificially increase the demand as well, thus offsetting any price pressure.
What you are describing is in the same vein as the Creative Commons Founders' Copyright, although I am not sure that there is a workable way to also offer the work under a permissive license until the conversion to public domain. Alternately, you could simply wait 14 years (or what have you) and then declare your work to be in the public domain. CC can help you with that too. Of course, all of this assumes that they will still exist in 14 or however many years.
Both of Intel's Mini-ITX desktop boards with the Atom have the CPU passively cooled. However, they have a fan for the chipset (which consumes more power), and that may be the source of your confusion. At least some Atom-based notebooks do have cooling fans, but I couldn't say if they all do.
Additionally, the (theoretical) recovery methods for wiped data all rely on electron microscopes taking extremely high precision measurements. Your hard drive does not contain an electron microscope, nor would that be economical.
I think the GP has confused "realistically doable" with "easy". No one, to my knowledge, has ever argued that recovering a wiped drive would be a trivial undertaking. Only that, to a determined attacker with appropriate resources, it might be possible to do in a reasonable amount of time. And the question is really whether or not that is true.
I didn't even see the "previous interview" and "next interview" links on the articles until I deliberately set about finding such links. I did spot the links under "recent features", but those will eventually move down the queue and out of sight. So it's actually somewhat helpful for TFS to link to the 3 articles. Granted, better web design could have made the additional links unnecessary.
I'm not clear on why it is relevant whether or not Wikipedia is a "bargain". In fact, most of your comment seems to have nothing to do with these accusations. I'm also confused that you would criticize an article as failing to be NPOV, then go on to refer to one of its subjects as a "twerp" and "nobody".
If these accusations are true, then that is a serious problem. Not just because it would be a severe breach of the project's ideals, but because this sort of bribery would be fundamentally unacceptable. From TFA it appears to be entirely a matter of Merkey's word and a possible coincidence right now, which is not exactly convincing. But certainly there is enough there to warrant a touch of suspicion, and that suspicion should be addressed in a fair and even-handed way.
Certainly the smart thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do at this point would be to investigate whether anything untoward did in fact happen. No matter how good a "bargain" Wikipedia may be, the Foundation must be vigilant against any possible corruption. If Wales is shown to be innocent, great; life goes on. If he is shown to be guilty, then we will see how much backbone the Foundation really has. If it were to choose to tolerate corruption in its midst, then no, Wikipedia as we know it very well might not outlive the Twitters of the world. But hopefully Wales did nothing unethical, and the project can rumble onward.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post confuses me. For quite some time after Wikipedia got big, Wales tried to downplay the role that Sanger had in Wikipedia, specifically choosing not to refer to him as a "cofounder". That was historical revisionism.
And I don't find anything horrifically disingenuous about Sanger describing himself as the Wikipedia guy rather than the Citizendium guy. I am confident that Elon Musk does not introduce himself as having worked on a late-90s project to transfer money wirelessly between Palm Pilot devices (which was the original business plan for Paypal, the company that made him rich).
On the other hand, this is obvious spam that does not even acknowledge the existence of Wikinews, which is as much a "Wikipedia for news" as it is possible for something to be.
Case in point, a US gov site was in fact just hacked. That story is just 3 stories below this one on the Slashdot front page: http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/10/05/0410236
While I am sympathetic to your point in general, I am not clear on how it applies to this particular submission. staticflickr.com is the domain that Flickr serves images from; presumably the submitter uploaded the images to Flickr so they would be on a solid host, and then used them in the submission. I doubt Flickr cares if he is increasing their traffic numbers.
http://www.flickr.com/services/api/misc.urls.html
As the Fine Summary indicates, it updates once per hour.
In reality, the implementation of a modern x86 CPU does not (and has not for years now) look anything like a 386. The chips have a chunk of decoder logic that translates x86 instructions into the processor's own internal instructions ("micro-ops"). I believe it was AMD that made the point a few years ago: that decoder logic doesn't get much more complex over time, and therefore (by the magic of process shrinks and increasing transistor counts) actually gets cheaper over time. At this point it's basically a trivial cost, other than the design work to make sure the decoder works. IIRC Intel has made similar statements.
So basically this statement makes me wonder how much the author actually knows about the CPU business.
Or do you'll believe that if they achieve another few order of magnitude of frequency, suddenly they'll drain the entire market of all it's value in a single day?
In the 2010 "flash crash", the Dow Jones Industrial Average temporarily lost over 9% of its valuation in minutes. This was essentially due to high-frequency trading algorithms driving down the valuation of Proctor & Gamble. The behavior of the automated systems was so rapid and so poorly-designed that they were able to cause the price of the stock to plunge dramatically before anyone could react. When people did react, it was with panic and confusion. And all because of a basically trivial trigger event. If you make the systems even faster, that sure won't serve to make them any smarter.
Let's not pretend that the HFT systems are some benign force. They can, have, and will cause significant damage to the market. It is madness that we have not yet tamed them with meaningful regulations.
They are sticking to PHP. What they are changing is the language used by templates (the system that allows reuse of text, but has grown to provide all programmatic features available to editors). The current templating system is at least part of what you accurately describe as "obscure server-side behaviour".
As it stands right now, "plain" templates that just insert some text or whatever are not too bad. But templates that do anything more complex, especially if they require the use of ParserFunctions, quickly become a nightmare to write and matinain. Hopefully Lua will be better. I can't imagine it being much worse.
The GP probably meant to comment on the story about Amazon "censoring" certain gay fiction.
Your workplace sounds incredibly unpleasant.
FSlint's "merge" option will do what you want.
Because the surviving Beatles, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison's family have collectively opposed making the Beatles' catalog available on any such service. They were slow to jump to CDs as well. It has nothing particularly to do with Apple (the computer company).
Suppose that such a cooling trend were to occur mainly because of Cap and Trade and friends, but sunspot activity coincidentally changed over the same period. How loudly do you think certain individuals would declare that it was all sunspots all along?
Or perhaps it is only the people that disagree with you that can be irrational fools.
He didn't say that the Wii was as capable as its peers, he said that it was as capable as the best gaming systems around several years ago when we were getting games like Unreal Tournament 2004. Don't mis-quote and then dispute - That's cheating (i.e. strawman).
TFA is about the Wii being less capable than its peers, so it sounds like your complaint should be with the great-grandparent. Nobody was misquoted, the grandparent just directly challenged the great-grandparent's attempt to minimize the importance of what TFA is about (and blaim the publishers instead).
Well since they've offered it to the highest bidder, notionally some third party could offer $bignumber for the data and then use it for this sort of purpose. Of course that doesn't seem terribly likely, the SMS cost data (and therefore the analysis) would be seen as tainted, and the hackers could still decide to also provide the data to some or all of the other bidders...
It's not clear what point, if any, you are trying to make here.
TFA is about Google using humans to improve its results, in a few ways.
Wolfram Alpha derives all of its results from a database that is curated by humans.
There are major differences in their approaches (as indeed there are major differences in what they are trying to accomplish), but the general notion of involving human beings to improve your results is the same.
By avoiding the appearance of being suspicious, and therefore avoiding being blacklisted in the first place.
Because major multinational Joe-Blow, Inc., is not comfortable buying joe-blow.tld1 and letting whoever wants to buy joe-blow.tld2, which they could use in a way that damages Joe-Blow's reputation. There is some legal recourse to that, depending on the specifics, but that takes time and is anything but guaranteed. Why risk it? So most large companies (and indeed, many smaller companies) just buy a bunch of permutations of their domain name, including different TLDs and common misspellings. They will generally ignore ccTLDs (of which there are over 250) except maybe the one for their own country, but will often buy several or all of the no-restrictions gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, and if they feel like it .biz, .info, and maybe the others). ICANN is moving toward creating more gTLDs.
So in effect, increasing the supply of gTLDs stands to artificially increase the demand as well, thus offsetting any price pressure.
What you are describing is in the same vein as the Creative Commons Founders' Copyright, although I am not sure that there is a workable way to also offer the work under a permissive license until the conversion to public domain. Alternately, you could simply wait 14 years (or what have you) and then declare your work to be in the public domain. CC can help you with that too. Of course, all of this assumes that they will still exist in 14 or however many years.
I assume you realize that "maximum theoretical speed of the interface" and "real-world performance" are not the same thing.
Both of Intel's Mini-ITX desktop boards with the Atom have the CPU passively cooled. However, they have a fan for the chipset (which consumes more power), and that may be the source of your confusion. At least some Atom-based notebooks do have cooling fans, but I couldn't say if they all do.
Additionally, the (theoretical) recovery methods for wiped data all rely on electron microscopes taking extremely high precision measurements. Your hard drive does not contain an electron microscope, nor would that be economical.
I think the GP has confused "realistically doable" with "easy". No one, to my knowledge, has ever argued that recovering a wiped drive would be a trivial undertaking. Only that, to a determined attacker with appropriate resources, it might be possible to do in a reasonable amount of time. And the question is really whether or not that is true.
I didn't even see the "previous interview" and "next interview" links on the articles until I deliberately set about finding such links. I did spot the links under "recent features", but those will eventually move down the queue and out of sight. So it's actually somewhat helpful for TFS to link to the 3 articles. Granted, better web design could have made the additional links unnecessary.
Network Neutrality Squad Network Measurement Agent. It's LGPL.
I'm not clear on why it is relevant whether or not Wikipedia is a "bargain". In fact, most of your comment seems to have nothing to do with these accusations. I'm also confused that you would criticize an article as failing to be NPOV, then go on to refer to one of its subjects as a "twerp" and "nobody".
If these accusations are true, then that is a serious problem. Not just because it would be a severe breach of the project's ideals, but because this sort of bribery would be fundamentally unacceptable. From TFA it appears to be entirely a matter of Merkey's word and a possible coincidence right now, which is not exactly convincing. But certainly there is enough there to warrant a touch of suspicion, and that suspicion should be addressed in a fair and even-handed way.
Certainly the smart thing for the Wikimedia Foundation to do at this point would be to investigate whether anything untoward did in fact happen. No matter how good a "bargain" Wikipedia may be, the Foundation must be vigilant against any possible corruption. If Wales is shown to be innocent, great; life goes on. If he is shown to be guilty, then we will see how much backbone the Foundation really has. If it were to choose to tolerate corruption in its midst, then no, Wikipedia as we know it very well might not outlive the Twitters of the world. But hopefully Wales did nothing unethical, and the project can rumble onward.