You cite 2 companies that have been caught and prosecuted for doing something illegal, and from that insist on the fact that members of 2 other organizations have definitely done the same things.
Can I assume that if I stand outside your house and tell all of your neighbors that you're a murderer and child molestor that you won't try to sue me for slander because I have "evidence" that includes people who aren't you being convicted of these things?
I think he's talking about those same money-grubbing Communists who Hitler thought ran all of the world's banks. Because, you know, there's nothing bankers and money-hungry corporate CEOs love more than giving the means of production to the workers.
I find the one, fairly obvious, click on the "Cite this article" link is just fine. Making the link shiny and flaming would just make the site ugly, IMO.
I'd argue that since the site's run by a non-profit with a particular goal, it's fairly obvious that it does matter and that the popularity of the site is what doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if MySpace is a steaming pile of horribly-coded junk with millions of unreadable pages as long as it's popular enough that someone will pay half a billion dollars to acquire it. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be popular.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) with a vision to bring a free and accurate encyclopedia to every single person on the planet. This includes people who currently do not have electricity, computers, Internet access, or even clean drinking water. All proceeds from donations, as with all proceeds from all Foundation fundraisers, are fully dedicated to that charitable purpose.
The question posed in the article is whether Wikipedia is failing in its stated purpose, which is to create a reliable encyclopedia, not whether it's failing to become a popular website. Why not just replace the entire site with a myspace-clone social networking site, build a huge userbase, and declare the project a huge success?
Plant patents work the same way. If you discover a new plant in an uncultivated state and asexually reproduce it, you can get exclusive rights to it for 20 years. Is this completely ridiculous? Sure. But it's the law in the US.
That's nice. If I can find someone else who graduated from Harvard Medical School who disagrees with him on any given point, will that make the Universe implode in a logical paradox, since they've come up with some sort of way to make all of their graduates completely infallible?
If you think the Constitution says that the government can't use your tax dollars to fund things that you personally would never, under any circumstances, support or endorse, I suggest you reread the entire document from the beginning and try to find anything whatsoever in there that would have this effect.
Oddly enough, the framers only gave one person the right to veto anything, and I'm pretty sure you're not that person.
If that MUD is using telnetd instead of using its own socket code, it may not be "the most legacy of legacy crap" but it's certainly the worst MUD software ever written.
Although I suspect you just have no idea what you're talking about and it's not doing that.
I think Occam's Razor stands against the whole idea that the universe has existed for billions of years at all. It seems much simpler to be that the entire universe came into existence 5 minutes ago, and will vanish in another 5 minutes. Therefore that must be true.
Well, of course they use data that the stares are collecting anyway, but I hardly think we can expect them to get funding to do what GP suggesting, which was paying for their own giant grid of weather stations blanketing the entire country. This would be both extremely expensive and probably not particularly effective; the problem of forecasting weather accurately beyond a few days time isn't necessarily going to get any easier simply by adding more data points, unless we find a way to track the motion of every molecule in the atmosphere and build a really big computer capable of predicting what all of the factors that might affect what those molecules do are going to do. At some point I imagine the problem of free will or unpredicatble quantum effects would enter the picture and make even that system ineffective.
Not quite. In Felix, the defendant was convicted of the original crime and then later charged with an additional count of conspiracy. This is a lot different than being acquitted of a crime and then being charged with conspiracy to commit that crime.
What blows my mind is why does the National weather service not install a crap load of cellular connected mini weather stations across the country in the military grid coordinates?
Lack of an unlimited budget?
Who knows what they'll be able to accomplish now that Rick Santorum isn't around to try to prevent them from competing with PA-Based Accuweather anymore, though?
But if you claim that you have written a song, how do you know whether or not you are really the author? If a court finds that you subconsciously copied your song from an existing song, then you are not the rightful author
I've made a concerted effort throughout my entire life to never hear a single copyrighted work of music. Take that, RIAA!
So what? The complaint was that a CD was being wasted; I assume this means OP doesn't want to keep the music on a CD; he just wants to burn it temporarily so he can re-rip as MP3. Better to overwrite a CD-RW than to just throw away a bunch of CD-Rs he doesn't want anyway.
You call yourself an audiophile and you don't even have a turntable in your car to play your vinyl? Ha! You probably can't even tell the difference between $5,000 and $10,000 speakers!
Slashdot Mirror
You cite 2 companies that have been caught and prosecuted for doing something illegal, and from that insist on the fact that members of 2 other organizations have definitely done the same things.
Can I assume that if I stand outside your house and tell all of your neighbors that you're a murderer and child molestor that you won't try to sue me for slander because I have "evidence" that includes people who aren't you being convicted of these things?
I think he's talking about those same money-grubbing Communists who Hitler thought ran all of the world's banks. Because, you know, there's nothing bankers and money-hungry corporate CEOs love more than giving the means of production to the workers.
I find the one, fairly obvious, click on the "Cite this article" link is just fine. Making the link shiny and flaming would just make the site ugly, IMO.
It doesn't matter if MySpace is a steaming pile of horribly-coded junk with millions of unreadable pages as long as it's popular enough that someone will pay half a billion dollars to acquire it. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be popular.
The question posed in the article is whether Wikipedia is failing in its stated purpose, which is to create a reliable encyclopedia, not whether it's failing to become a popular website. Why not just replace the entire site with a myspace-clone social networking site, build a huge userbase, and declare the project a huge success?
Or maybe they already know exactly what will happen if they tried this because they already did. Nupedia was an unqualified disaster.
Plant patents work the same way. If you discover a new plant in an uncultivated state and asexually reproduce it, you can get exclusive rights to it for 20 years. Is this completely ridiculous? Sure. But it's the law in the US.
That's nice. If I can find someone else who graduated from Harvard Medical School who disagrees with him on any given point, will that make the Universe implode in a logical paradox, since they've come up with some sort of way to make all of their graduates completely infallible?
If you think the Constitution says that the government can't use your tax dollars to fund things that you personally would never, under any circumstances, support or endorse, I suggest you reread the entire document from the beginning and try to find anything whatsoever in there that would have this effect.
Oddly enough, the framers only gave one person the right to veto anything, and I'm pretty sure you're not that person.
If that MUD is using telnetd instead of using its own socket code, it may not be "the most legacy of legacy crap" but it's certainly the worst MUD software ever written.
Although I suspect you just have no idea what you're talking about and it's not doing that.
If you choose to live 30 miles from any retail stores, you can't really blame anyone but yourself for the lack of convenience in your life.
I think Occam's Razor stands against the whole idea that the universe has existed for billions of years at all. It seems much simpler to be that the entire universe came into existence 5 minutes ago, and will vanish in another 5 minutes. Therefore that must be true.
Sure, if by "too much" you mean "not enough, so Microsfot could come along and kill it", you're absolutely right.
Well, of course they use data that the stares are collecting anyway, but I hardly think we can expect them to get funding to do what GP suggesting, which was paying for their own giant grid of weather stations blanketing the entire country. This would be both extremely expensive and probably not particularly effective; the problem of forecasting weather accurately beyond a few days time isn't necessarily going to get any easier simply by adding more data points, unless we find a way to track the motion of every molecule in the atmosphere and build a really big computer capable of predicting what all of the factors that might affect what those molecules do are going to do. At some point I imagine the problem of free will or unpredicatble quantum effects would enter the picture and make even that system ineffective.
Not quite. In Felix, the defendant was convicted of the original crime and then later charged with an additional count of conspiracy. This is a lot different than being acquitted of a crime and then being charged with conspiracy to commit that crime.
Care to cite a single time that's happened in the US without it being found to be completely unconsitutional?
Well, when you live in your mom's basement, you can spend all of your money on computers.
Please stay out of my rose garden. Do not try to explain that you were actually trying to help my roses. Thanks.
What blows my mind is why does the National weather service not install a crap load of cellular connected mini weather stations across the country in the military grid coordinates?
Lack of an unlimited budget?
Who knows what they'll be able to accomplish now that Rick Santorum isn't around to try to prevent them from competing with PA-Based Accuweather anymore, though?
But if you claim that you have written a song, how do you know whether or not you are really the author? If a court finds that you subconsciously copied your song from an existing song, then you are not the rightful author
I've made a concerted effort throughout my entire life to never hear a single copyrighted work of music. Take that, RIAA!
So what? The complaint was that a CD was being wasted; I assume this means OP doesn't want to keep the music on a CD; he just wants to burn it temporarily so he can re-rip as MP3. Better to overwrite a CD-RW than to just throw away a bunch of CD-Rs he doesn't want anyway.
Of course, most brilliant inventions seem "obvious" after you've heard of them.
You call yourself an audiophile and you don't even have a turntable in your car to play your vinyl? Ha! You probably can't even tell the difference between $5,000 and $10,000 speakers!
I heard last week that they've just invented some kind of newfangled rerecordable CDs! They might be coming to a store near you real soon!!11!!!
Plus if you buy the CDs you're stuck paying for a copy of "The Long and Winding Road" that no one could ever possibly find a use for.