That is, of course, providing that microsoft's system provides what game manufacturers want. If it's efficient and easy to use, well, someone better start on a linux equivalent, if that's possible. I'm not a software engineer.
...Complete domination is never good for the consumer (at least not often, because competition usually spurs innovation). However, I doubt Microsoft will dominate the video game market that easily. I wonder if it'll lead to better games, at least in the short run?
That's because new observations obviously must be tested and verified to be true. Scientists can't suddenly exlaim "WOW THIS MAN IS EINSTEIN HE IS RIGHT!!!!!1"
Obviously, his observations were validated by experiments. The same can't be said about quantum mechanics, which you dogmatically deny based on the fact, apparently, that Einstein thought so.
You're just a blind "Einstein fanboy". If Einstein said it, it must be true! If it was part of Einstein's gut feeling, it must be true!
Fortunantly, science does not work in your delusional, fantastical, and almost supernatural way.
It's very uncertain on what Einstein was, and it doesn't matter. Even though there is no doubt as the the importance of his findings, he is not a "model" scientists-- he wrongly rejected quantum mechanics based on feeling.
How interesting and ironic-- when I read this I was, in fact, seeding a file for a television show I had already downloaded and watched-- I did not turn it off after downloading, and neither do many other people. Oh, and the download speed was much faster than most P2P solutions-- 100 Kb/s on average!
You're right, wikipedia's general lack of arbitration really stops those trolls! Why, the fact that they are alone stops them completely from reverting articles! In fact, you're right, I am looney... all my memories of such things happening when I went there are all DELUSIONS!
Having members try to get me temp. banned because I reverted from a POV, biased article from a known problem user over three times in a 24-hour period (when the rule says, vaguely, "day"?)
How about being called immature for trying to get some "community support" on the same article because no one else wants to review changes, saying "let the community fix it"?
Me getting temp. banned then was justified, however, it was aggravated by the wonderful "community" you have going there.
# Danny 02:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) I am not condoning LK's behavior. It seems to me, however, that this is another example of how trolling and POV-pushing can push a valuable contributor away from the project. I am not opposed to disciplinary meansures, given the attacks, but I think that the problem runs much deeper than LK's actions and that these have to be addressed first
As regards deeper problems, I agree, Danny. I was sadened to see LK go into vandal mode, as despite having a tendency to fly off the handle from time to time, he was a good contributor, and endured a great deal of grief over the Jack Lynch trolling incident. I will miss him, and like you, I believe that a good deal of the reason we lose valuable contributors from time to time is that we do not handle these matters very well as yet. Tannin 02:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I believe both Tannin and Danny are admins/sysops.
Yes, and instead of getting to the point and saying, for example, "the world is round", to "NPOVify" it one would (especially if they are, in this case, a flat-earther) be "scientists claims the world is round".
This is a very basic example, but it's how it often it. In wikipedia, the only thing that's allowed to be true is what other people have claimed.
**yes, I realise being able to vote is "democratic", but when I was there it was executed in such a lawless way it was inefficient and many times unfair.
Unfortunantly wikipedia's community is almost anarchistic. Being able to "vote" on whether a user is suspended or whatnot (well, it was like that not too long ago!) is never, ever a good practice on online communities. Also, pages are sometimes guarded by various quacks who have nothing better to do than flood pages with misinformation and re-add it in every time it is changed. Pages can be locked, but they can be locked on the "quack" version and the troll can start up again once it's unlocked.
Once I spent months(!) on an article dealing with a guy who continuosly added strawman, typos, and other garbage. He finally quit, but I still check back to see if he's found it again.
I would consider slashdot or something awful to have far superior communities. Sure, the idea is great (I sometimes contribute to wikipedia here), but let's be honest with wikipedia-- trolls are almost unstoppable, and many editors and admins I have met are rude and lazy, following the moto "Let the wikiprocess sort it out"-- using that as an excuse to have someone else fix it. And of course nobody does-- and when you do you get labeled "POV, troll, fanatic", etc.
Quacks, paranormalists, spiritualists, creationists, and various other people quickly hunt down opposition and try to silence it any way they can. One guy even got into a war over the capitilization of "god" (was not referring to any specific god) and the issue took a long time to resolve.
Maybe if you're looking up info for London or Al Capone or the economy in 1945 the thing is good-- but for anything remotely controversial, such as science, skeptics, religion, I would not recommend it simply because of the "community" at wikipedia I have experienced firsthand.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be
"Gee, Bill what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night Steve. Try to take over the world!"
That is, of course, providing that microsoft's system provides what game manufacturers want. If it's efficient and easy to use, well, someone better start on a linux equivalent, if that's possible. I'm not a software engineer.
...Complete domination is never good for the consumer (at least not often, because competition usually spurs innovation). However, I doubt Microsoft will dominate the video game market that easily. I wonder if it'll lead to better games, at least in the short run?
That's because new observations obviously must be tested and verified to be true. Scientists can't suddenly exlaim "WOW THIS MAN IS EINSTEIN HE IS RIGHT!!!!!1"
Obviously, his observations were validated by experiments. The same can't be said about quantum mechanics, which you dogmatically deny based on the fact, apparently, that Einstein thought so.
You're just a blind "Einstein fanboy". If Einstein said it, it must be true! If it was part of Einstein's gut feeling, it must be true!
Fortunantly, science does not work in your delusional, fantastical, and almost supernatural way.
Since Einstein was right about other things, he is right about quantum mechanics?
It appears that Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Few scientists agree with him on that nowadays.
The scammer still needs to be legally dealt with. He has, and probabily will continue to, con more people out.
Well, Christians have done similar things, but not actually yell "-1, Troll!"...
Don't be too sure about that.
"Except for the best ones".
Sample size = 1, 2?
Also, hypocrisy is a flaw.
It's very uncertain on what Einstein was, and it doesn't matter. Even though there is no doubt as the the importance of his findings, he is not a "model" scientists-- he wrongly rejected quantum mechanics based on feeling.
My sig? I'm glad I'm noticed :)
*builds a facility strangely resembling a german concentration camp*
*puts up a sign that says "Spammers Only Club"*
*rubs hands devilishly*
"Lifted"?
Well, maybe not that, as far as I know they didn't break any licenses or anything. I would say they "used" the BSD TCP/IP stack...
How interesting and ironic-- when I read this I was, in fact, seeding a file for a television show I had already downloaded and watched-- I did not turn it off after downloading, and neither do many other people. Oh, and the download speed was much faster than most P2P solutions-- 100 Kb/s on average!
That's nice, because atheism isn't a religion. You're modded down for not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.
*points to sig*
You're right, wikipedia's general lack of arbitration really stops those trolls! Why, the fact that they are alone stops them completely from reverting articles! In fact, you're right, I am looney... all my memories of such things happening when I went there are all DELUSIONS!
Might you explain what led me to do that?
l s/ Archive#Lord_Kenneth_(85%/20_votes)
Having members try to get me temp. banned because I reverted from a POV, biased article from a known problem user over three times in a 24-hour period (when the rule says, vaguely, "day"?)
How about being called immature for trying to get some "community support" on the same article because no one else wants to review changes, saying "let the community fix it"?
Me getting temp. banned then was justified, however, it was aggravated by the wonderful "community" you have going there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quickpol
# Danny 02:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) I am not condoning LK's behavior. It seems to me, however, that this is another example of how trolling and POV-pushing can push a valuable contributor away from the project. I am not opposed to disciplinary meansures, given the attacks, but I think that the problem runs much deeper than LK's actions and that these have to be addressed first
As regards deeper problems, I agree, Danny. I was sadened to see LK go into vandal mode, as despite having a tendency to fly off the handle from time to time, he was a good contributor, and endured a great deal of grief over the Jack Lynch trolling incident. I will miss him, and like you, I believe that a good deal of the reason we lose valuable contributors from time to time is that we do not handle these matters very well as yet. Tannin 02:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I believe both Tannin and Danny are admins/sysops.
Yes, and instead of getting to the point and saying, for example, "the world is round", to "NPOVify" it one would (especially if they are, in this case, a flat-earther) be "scientists claims the world is round".
This is a very basic example, but it's how it often it. In wikipedia, the only thing that's allowed to be true is what other people have claimed.
Is it just me, or do people on this site mod down posts with which they disagree, rather than debating?
New to Slashdot, I see...
**yes, I realise being able to vote is "democratic", but when I was there it was executed in such a lawless way it was inefficient and many times unfair.
Unfortunantly wikipedia's community is almost anarchistic. Being able to "vote" on whether a user is suspended or whatnot (well, it was like that not too long ago!) is never, ever a good practice on online communities. Also, pages are sometimes guarded by various quacks who have nothing better to do than flood pages with misinformation and re-add it in every time it is changed. Pages can be locked, but they can be locked on the "quack" version and the troll can start up again once it's unlocked.
Once I spent months(!) on an article dealing with a guy who continuosly added strawman, typos, and other garbage. He finally quit, but I still check back to see if he's found it again.
"Best" community?
I would consider slashdot or something awful to have far superior communities. Sure, the idea is great (I sometimes contribute to wikipedia here), but let's be honest with wikipedia-- trolls are almost unstoppable, and many editors and admins I have met are rude and lazy, following the moto "Let the wikiprocess sort it out"-- using that as an excuse to have someone else fix it. And of course nobody does-- and when you do you get labeled "POV, troll, fanatic", etc.
Quacks, paranormalists, spiritualists, creationists, and various other people quickly hunt down opposition and try to silence it any way they can. One guy even got into a war over the capitilization of "god" (was not referring to any specific god) and the issue took a long time to resolve.
Maybe if you're looking up info for London or Al Capone or the economy in 1945 the thing is good-- but for anything remotely controversial, such as science, skeptics, religion, I would not recommend it simply because of the "community" at wikipedia I have experienced firsthand.
Basically, congressmen are elected officials. They come from different states. The amount of congressmen differs per population of each state.
Big corporations give them campaign donations and such. They then campaign for those corporation's interests.
Hell, they might even P2P the real-files index :-)
Actually, there are many sites out that that index P2P files. Sharereactor was a popular edonkey one that was recently taken down.