First, get some spammers e-mail addresses, then one could register them multiple times in other spammers' sites, so they would spam each other.
Or maybe one could get their real addresses and a sniper rifle.
I just think the whole thing about using or not Wikipedia as a trustful source of information in academic environments is very arguable.
Why? Because it is already happening! I am studying in the last year of a College in Brazil, and in the beginning of the year I had an interesting presentation about the Falklands War. It contained a lot of interesting information and pictures, and in the end, the History professor included a "References" section to the slides. I was surprised and pleased to see, along the so called "respected" references, like history books, the link to the Wikipedia site.
I don't know what portion of that stuff came from Wikipedia, but just seeing recognition of this work (that I already knew at the time) made me think "why not?".
Yes. Why not? Knowledge is everywhere. If one says that something must be attached to a recognized name to be true, ask him if his parents were "recognized" to teach him what they did.
People are recognized for their knowledge, not the other way.
Geez, this could be a slashdot quote.
In the case of whether you can play both sides, it would be fair to cite the case in which counterstrike, one of the most played online games, allows the player to take both sides.
It would also be fair to say that some people DO like the bad side. About that is the previously cited Star Wars Galaxies, in which one of the most played characters resembles the sith warrior of the movie.
Going further, consider the other great half-life mod Day of Defeat, where you can play both sides (and I like to play nazi).
This is quite a good guy vs bad guy discussion, but remember that everything is relative and can be faced from different points-of-view. US itself may be the greatest country in world, but that is the opinion of americans, not necessarily of the whole world. I think my country (not US) is the best, but that is not the opinion of others too. So, I say, let the game have a chance. I just won't buy it.
The rest is just economics and politics.
I think the worst problem you will actually encounter if asking a company to open its sources is the same as you see with M$.
Why does M$ keeps launching the same programs just with a better look and just one or two really useful features? And why do they need an OS that does the same? And why do they stop supporting their old software? Because that's where they get their money from.
Imagine you were a car company that wants to make money from every client you can. Then what would you do? Would you make durable cars that can be easily repaired by anyone? No, you would make cars that can break just after the warranty expires and ask an exorbitant price for diagnosing the problem with your proprietary software. Then you would make it so only your authorized car repair shops have your software. That would also increase the cost of repairing.
Doing that will also make people with money to just sell their used cars to get rid of the problem of repairing and buy a new one (maybe from you).
Welcome to the ways of Capitalism!
Well, I've been reading for quite some time now about all this mess about e-voting and have to ask someone: what is the problem? E-voting has been employed for some years now in Brazil and nobody disliked it. Well, you still can't vote by the net, but who is perfect? Brazil's way for avoiding disapproval is quite simple really: in every machine there is a small printer that prints paper votes directly into an urn. So, if someone thinks there is fraud, you can ask to recount the votes. If power fails for too long for the no-breaks to resist, you still have the paper voting for backup. It's really a matter of keeping it simple.
Slashdot Mirror
First, get some spammers e-mail addresses, then one could register them multiple times in other spammers' sites, so they would spam each other. Or maybe one could get their real addresses and a sniper rifle.
I just think the whole thing about using or not Wikipedia as a trustful source of information in academic environments is very arguable. Why? Because it is already happening! I am studying in the last year of a College in Brazil, and in the beginning of the year I had an interesting presentation about the Falklands War. It contained a lot of interesting information and pictures, and in the end, the History professor included a "References" section to the slides. I was surprised and pleased to see, along the so called "respected" references, like history books, the link to the Wikipedia site. I don't know what portion of that stuff came from Wikipedia, but just seeing recognition of this work (that I already knew at the time) made me think "why not?". Yes. Why not? Knowledge is everywhere. If one says that something must be attached to a recognized name to be true, ask him if his parents were "recognized" to teach him what they did. People are recognized for their knowledge, not the other way. Geez, this could be a slashdot quote.
In the case of whether you can play both sides, it would be fair to cite the case in which counterstrike, one of the most played online games, allows the player to take both sides. It would also be fair to say that some people DO like the bad side. About that is the previously cited Star Wars Galaxies, in which one of the most played characters resembles the sith warrior of the movie. Going further, consider the other great half-life mod Day of Defeat, where you can play both sides (and I like to play nazi). This is quite a good guy vs bad guy discussion, but remember that everything is relative and can be faced from different points-of-view. US itself may be the greatest country in world, but that is the opinion of americans, not necessarily of the whole world. I think my country (not US) is the best, but that is not the opinion of others too. So, I say, let the game have a chance. I just won't buy it. The rest is just economics and politics.
I think the worst problem you will actually encounter if asking a company to open its sources is the same as you see with M$. Why does M$ keeps launching the same programs just with a better look and just one or two really useful features? And why do they need an OS that does the same? And why do they stop supporting their old software? Because that's where they get their money from. Imagine you were a car company that wants to make money from every client you can. Then what would you do? Would you make durable cars that can be easily repaired by anyone? No, you would make cars that can break just after the warranty expires and ask an exorbitant price for diagnosing the problem with your proprietary software. Then you would make it so only your authorized car repair shops have your software. That would also increase the cost of repairing. Doing that will also make people with money to just sell their used cars to get rid of the problem of repairing and buy a new one (maybe from you). Welcome to the ways of Capitalism!
Well, I've been reading for quite some time now about all this mess about e-voting and have to ask someone: what is the problem? E-voting has been employed for some years now in Brazil and nobody disliked it. Well, you still can't vote by the net, but who is perfect? Brazil's way for avoiding disapproval is quite simple really: in every machine there is a small printer that prints paper votes directly into an urn. So, if someone thinks there is fraud, you can ask to recount the votes. If power fails for too long for the no-breaks to resist, you still have the paper voting for backup. It's really a matter of keeping it simple.