From Wikipedia: "Chase said he had done it as a joke to amuse a colleague when they found out anyone could edit Wikipedia."
I do that myself all the time. It's funny looking at people's reactions when I do it.
Bob: Wikipedia is such a great resource!
Brandybuck: No it's not, any idiot can edit it, even you.
What do you mean?
Here, let me show you. Look up "Dr. Pepper". Okay, now click that edit button and start typing away.
But my edit would be instantly reverted.
No it wouldn't. How many people do you think are going to fact check a Dr. Pepper article? You've got a good chance of your edit staying up there for months if you make it sound plausible. For example, type this in: "Because of this widespread belief, the company actually started using prune juice in its product during the years 1946-1947." Now come back in a month and see if it's still there...
But you can't do stuff like that to major article about a current controversy.
Sure you can. It just takes a little bit more work. Just post something bogus to Daily Kos or Little Green Footballs, then link to it from the Wikipedia article with a phrase like: "Controversy still simmers on this issue after new allegations [your link here] were later made".
Wow! I didn't know that this was possible.
Yes it is. I'm one of thousands who regularly insert false information into Wikipedia. We have our own network to coordinate our activities. Next tuesday we have an editfest scheduled for the CmdrTaco article.
I recently discovered that a somewhat major article in Wikipedia used ME as one of its sources. I am aghast! I thought wp was bad before, now I can't help but giggle every time I look something up.
You're right. It's stupid for software companies to protect their software. As you've so eloquently stated, people will buy their software anyway. Piracy helps their sales, so they should encourage it. So what these companies need to do is to give away all of their software for free.
The thing is, you can simulate violence, but it's pretty damned hard to simulate nudity. Real violence is shocking in the US, to the point that it will get you an NC-17 rating. Remember that Florida porn actress who got paid to get beaten up on camera? That's one film you'll have a hard time finding in the local adult video store.
Yet it's always the "left" that insists that private businesses like movie theaters should NOT have the freedom or liberty to set any standards. A theater that does not show this movie is imposing its morality on others. It is not their right to decide, they must show all movies and so that all people can them all.
You have the right to choose for yourself whether or not you want to see a closeup of coitus but it is not your right to deny that decision to your young child. How dare you!
What I learned most was that the press in the US is not free to report those things. I should not have had to see a movie to see those things, they were news and they should have been in the news. The fact that the so called "liberal media" didn't report them says a lot.
The funny thing is, Mr. Moore got all of his news clips from the news.
What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?
Partly the same thing that motivates them to have a "No X Rated" blanket policy. Seriously. NC-17 means "no children under 17". Back when "X" was a rating, it meant the same thing. Not all X movies were pornography, and one even won an Acadamy Award. But that rating got tainted and so NC-17 was born, as a category for serious non-pornographic works that were inappropriate for children.
Theaters are businesses. Most have children (17 and under) and families as their core market segment. An NC-17 can earn a theater a reputation that can harm its business. Imagine a McDonalds restaurant selling Playboy. However, not all theaters are this way. Not by a long shot. If you want to see a movie that one theater isn't showing, go to another!
Speaking of McDonalds, where is the outrage that fast food restaurants aren't selling pornography? Where's the outrage that Safeway grocery stores don't have Hustlers in their magazine racks? They sell condoms, so why not porn?
but is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?
Yes, it's all a grand conspiracy by Bush and the Religious Right to keep you from seeing titties. No go crawl back into your hole and keep quiet. Sheesh.
You see, there was this thing with a broken levee in New Orleans that caused a lot of problems. You might have heard about it in the news. The thing is, that levee was made by civil engineers. Obviously, if civil engineers can't handle a simple levee, then maybe it's time they stood back and let liberal arts majors have a crack at it. Tulane is going to be supplying those liberal arts majors.
The current belief is malformed headers, an invalid 302 header with a bogus location and a redirect loop.
That's not it. That's not it by a mile. The real cause of this problem is that GoDaddy never bothered testing their site with anything other than two browsers. Hell, they probably only tested it with IE and the FF users just got lucky.
What the fsck is it with web developers that they never ever test their pages? And what is it with their managers that they don't insist on testing?
But a low IQ score doesn't mean you are not, either.
The real world test of this is a one hundred dollar bill. I will wager you a one hundred dollar bill (against your one hundred dollar bill) that two out of three randomly selected persons with IQ scores of less than 80 will not be considered smart, intelligent or brainy.
IQ scores are not perfect, but their statistical correlation to subjective "intelligence" is inarguable.
A major part of the problem is that CFO types don't like spending money on things they don't see a need for. By the time they see a need for security, it's past the point at which throwing money at the problem will fix things.
Yet these same people do see a need for keys and locks and swipe cards and security guards. Why do they think network security is any less important than physcial security?
Agencies that run this way always remind me that we are currently under another form of government than your ideological democracy
All governments expand to meet the limits of the public's endurance. Democratic governments are no exceptions, they're just more likely to stay at those limit rather than cross over them.
The current US government more resembles the vision of Bismarck than it does the vision of Jefferson.
It was mostly people on the Christian right who opposed the.xxx domain. Think it through for a second. If you offered pornmongers a new domain with no strings attached, obviously they would say yes. If you respond that the ".xxx" domain sucked because it had strings attached then you are just reinforcing my point that the Internet is governed. And worst, it is starting to be governed according to Christian principles!
You're combining four myths and pretending they're one fact. The first myth is that only the Christian right is opposed to pornography (the feminist left also strongly opposes it). The second myth is that the Christian right put a lot of pressure on ICANN to reject the.xxx proposal. While I'm sure ICANN got a few nastygrams on the topic, there's no evidence that they were significantly more numerous than nastygrams for the.biz proposal. Third, the idea that p0rn merchants want to be ghettoized to a.xxx domain is stupid. And fourth, complaints are not synonymous with "governance".
How do I take over the amazon.com domain from its current inhabitants?
Buy it. It's expensive, but with enough money (somewhere in the billions) I'm sure Bezos would be willing to sit down and negotiate the fine details. But one thing I do know, and that is that you will NOT be sending your application for the domain to any US government agency.
That's what I mean by no governance: tthe internet is not controlled by a government, but by an essentially laissez faire free market. If there really had been any sort of demand (beyond the silly political posturing) for a.xxx domain, it would have happened. But the actual users and content providers didn't want one and ICANN was smart enough to know it.
And of course, neither she nor Bush has any intentions of removing government oversight from the Internet.
Of course not! Since there currently is no government oversight for the internet, there's no way to remove it! That's what all the controversy is about. The EU and the UN want someone to be in CONTROL of the internet, because they fear its laissez faire and unregulated nature.
The point everyone except Condoleeza seem to be missing is that the internet doesn't need governing!
The computer was designed by Alan Turing, so without Europeans, DARPA wouldn't have invented Internet.
Fine. Go take your computers and go home. Oh wait! They're not your computers! Your computers are yours and ours are ours.
Once the technology is out there, it belongs to everyone. The internet is no different. If you don't like the way we "govern" the internet, nothing is stopping you from making your own and governing it the way you want.
I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies.
I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies, with guns. The police, armies and navies are what make the difference. My automobile insurance company can't arrest me for smoking pot or not declaring all of my income, my government can.
What are the chances that Condoleezza Rice actually has any clue what the "authoritative root zone file" is?
Do you even know who Condoleeza Rice even is? She is not some welfare black chick Bush picked to be his personal Oreo Cookie like the media portrays her, she's probably the most educated cabinet member in twenty years. She has more qualifications in her little finger than most politicians have in their entire extended families.
Slashdot Mirror
From Wikipedia: "Chase said he had done it as a joke to amuse a colleague when they found out anyone could edit Wikipedia."
I do that myself all the time. It's funny looking at people's reactions when I do it.
Bob: Wikipedia is such a great resource!
Brandybuck: No it's not, any idiot can edit it, even you.
What do you mean?
Here, let me show you. Look up "Dr. Pepper". Okay, now click that edit button and start typing away.
But my edit would be instantly reverted.
No it wouldn't. How many people do you think are going to fact check a Dr. Pepper article? You've got a good chance of your edit staying up there for months if you make it sound plausible. For example, type this in: "Because of this widespread belief, the company actually started using prune juice in its product during the years 1946-1947." Now come back in a month and see if it's still there...
But you can't do stuff like that to major article about a current controversy.
Sure you can. It just takes a little bit more work. Just post something bogus to Daily Kos or Little Green Footballs, then link to it from the Wikipedia article with a phrase like: "Controversy still simmers on this issue after new allegations [your link here] were later made".
Wow! I didn't know that this was possible.
Yes it is. I'm one of thousands who regularly insert false information into Wikipedia. We have our own network to coordinate our activities. Next tuesday we have an editfest scheduled for the CmdrTaco article.
I recently discovered that a somewhat major article in Wikipedia used ME as one of its sources. I am aghast! I thought wp was bad before, now I can't help but giggle every time I look something up.
Protectionism is good for us! Just think of the poor sugar farmer, textile manufacturer, steel worker, Java programmer...
You're right. It's stupid for software companies to protect their software. As you've so eloquently stated, people will buy their software anyway. Piracy helps their sales, so they should encourage it. So what these companies need to do is to give away all of their software for free.
The thing is, you can simulate violence, but it's pretty damned hard to simulate nudity. Real violence is shocking in the US, to the point that it will get you an NC-17 rating. Remember that Florida porn actress who got paid to get beaten up on camera? That's one film you'll have a hard time finding in the local adult video store.
Also, america is full of conservative groups that believe every other movie to be directed by satan in order to corrupt our youth.
Warning! Your objectivity is showing!
If they proactivelty say they won't show NC-17 movies, that keeps all the radical religious freaks out of their hair.
Yet these same theaters will show R movies have sex, nudity and violence.
Yet it's always the "left" that insists that private businesses like movie theaters should NOT have the freedom or liberty to set any standards. A theater that does not show this movie is imposing its morality on others. It is not their right to decide, they must show all movies and so that all people can them all.
You have the right to choose for yourself whether or not you want to see a closeup of coitus but it is not your right to deny that decision to your young child. How dare you!
What I learned most was that the press in the US is not free to report those things. I should not have had to see a movie to see those things, they were news and they should have been in the news. The fact that the so called "liberal media" didn't report them says a lot.
The funny thing is, Mr. Moore got all of his news clips from the news.
What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?
Partly the same thing that motivates them to have a "No X Rated" blanket policy. Seriously. NC-17 means "no children under 17". Back when "X" was a rating, it meant the same thing. Not all X movies were pornography, and one even won an Acadamy Award. But that rating got tainted and so NC-17 was born, as a category for serious non-pornographic works that were inappropriate for children.
Theaters are businesses. Most have children (17 and under) and families as their core market segment. An NC-17 can earn a theater a reputation that can harm its business. Imagine a McDonalds restaurant selling Playboy. However, not all theaters are this way. Not by a long shot. If you want to see a movie that one theater isn't showing, go to another!
Speaking of McDonalds, where is the outrage that fast food restaurants aren't selling pornography? Where's the outrage that Safeway grocery stores don't have Hustlers in their magazine racks? They sell condoms, so why not porn?
but is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?
Yes, it's all a grand conspiracy by Bush and the Religious Right to keep you from seeing titties. No go crawl back into your hole and keep quiet. Sheesh.
Maybe because it's not so buggy?
Well maybe OpenOffice isn't so buggy either!
You see, there was this thing with a broken levee in New Orleans that caused a lot of problems. You might have heard about it in the news. The thing is, that levee was made by civil engineers. Obviously, if civil engineers can't handle a simple levee, then maybe it's time they stood back and let liberal arts majors have a crack at it. Tulane is going to be supplying those liberal arts majors.
The current belief is malformed headers, an invalid 302 header with a bogus location and a redirect loop.
That's not it. That's not it by a mile. The real cause of this problem is that GoDaddy never bothered testing their site with anything other than two browsers. Hell, they probably only tested it with IE and the FF users just got lucky.
What the fsck is it with web developers that they never ever test their pages? And what is it with their managers that they don't insist on testing?
But a low IQ score doesn't mean you are not, either.
The real world test of this is a one hundred dollar bill. I will wager you a one hundred dollar bill (against your one hundred dollar bill) that two out of three randomly selected persons with IQ scores of less than 80 will not be considered smart, intelligent or brainy.
IQ scores are not perfect, but their statistical correlation to subjective "intelligence" is inarguable.
Like street criminals, terrorists are often affiliated with organizations. There is a Mafia, there is a Crips, there is an IRA, there is an Al Qaeda.
Duh.
A major part of the problem is that CFO types don't like spending money on things they don't see a need for. By the time they see a need for security, it's past the point at which throwing money at the problem will fix things.
Yet these same people do see a need for keys and locks and swipe cards and security guards. Why do they think network security is any less important than physcial security?
And yet people keep insisting that their spyware infection isn't their fault...
Agencies that run this way always remind me that we are currently under another form of government than your ideological democracy
All governments expand to meet the limits of the public's endurance. Democratic governments are no exceptions, they're just more likely to stay at those limit rather than cross over them.
The current US government more resembles the vision of Bismarck than it does the vision of Jefferson.
I get scared too, but for a different reason. The media's goal should not be to be "victorious", even on the editorial page.
It was mostly people on the Christian right who opposed the .xxx domain. Think it through for a second. If you offered pornmongers a new domain with no strings attached, obviously they would say yes. If you respond that the ".xxx" domain sucked because it had strings attached then you are just reinforcing my point that the Internet is governed. And worst, it is starting to be governed according to Christian principles!
.xxx proposal. While I'm sure ICANN got a few nastygrams on the topic, there's no evidence that they were significantly more numerous than nastygrams for the .biz proposal. Third, the idea that p0rn merchants want to be ghettoized to a .xxx domain is stupid. And fourth, complaints are not synonymous with "governance".
You're combining four myths and pretending they're one fact. The first myth is that only the Christian right is opposed to pornography (the feminist left also strongly opposes it). The second myth is that the Christian right put a lot of pressure on ICANN to reject the
How do I take over the amazon.com domain from its current inhabitants?
.xxx domain, it would have happened. But the actual users and content providers didn't want one and ICANN was smart enough to know it.
Buy it. It's expensive, but with enough money (somewhere in the billions) I'm sure Bezos would be willing to sit down and negotiate the fine details. But one thing I do know, and that is that you will NOT be sending your application for the domain to any US government agency.
That's what I mean by no governance: tthe internet is not controlled by a government, but by an essentially laissez faire free market. If there really had been any sort of demand (beyond the silly political posturing) for a
And of course, neither she nor Bush has any intentions of removing government oversight from the Internet.
Of course not! Since there currently is no government oversight for the internet, there's no way to remove it! That's what all the controversy is about. The EU and the UN want someone to be in CONTROL of the internet, because they fear its laissez faire and unregulated nature.
The point everyone except Condoleeza seem to be missing is that the internet doesn't need governing!
The computer was designed by Alan Turing, so without Europeans, DARPA wouldn't have invented Internet.
Fine. Go take your computers and go home. Oh wait! They're not your computers! Your computers are yours and ours are ours.
Once the technology is out there, it belongs to everyone. The internet is no different. If you don't like the way we "govern" the internet, nothing is stopping you from making your own and governing it the way you want.
I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies.
I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies, with guns. The police, armies and navies are what make the difference. My automobile insurance company can't arrest me for smoking pot or not declaring all of my income, my government can.
What are the chances that Condoleezza Rice actually has any clue what the "authoritative root zone file" is?
Do you even know who Condoleeza Rice even is? She is not some welfare black chick Bush picked to be his personal Oreo Cookie like the media portrays her, she's probably the most educated cabinet member in twenty years. She has more qualifications in her little finger than most politicians have in their entire extended families.