I agree. I wasn't really saying that any iteration of their claim actually had merit, just that they seemed to not put any real effort into the thing, and ended up making it so preposterous that any judge with even an inkling of technical knowledge should laugh them out of the courtroom.
Yeah, but honestly, I wonder if they even sent them an email before suing them in federal court. And even then, couldn't they have found some sort of invasion of privacy statute?
I realize the point of this suit is to get them to settle and just stop linking, but at least try to make it sound legitimate.
Mods (including myself) often give funny posts +1, Insightful or +1, Underrated because +1, Funny gives the poster no karma, and so if that moderation later gets countered with a -1, the user ultimately loses one point of karma, even though their post breaks even.
OK, OK./b/ is an image board on 4chan where many memes originate, and where a lot of actions by Anonymous are talked about. Anonymous pretty much originated from 4chan (among a few other sites) because of their "forced-anon" rule, which basically forces everyone to post anonymously.
Cracker is an idiot. Ever hear of Tor? Or better yet, post the information on something like Freenet and just advertise it on Freenet somehow and let other people get the information out to the main web.
Of course, the fact that he posted his nick on/b/ when it's usually forced-anon anyway means he basically confessed. Not to mention that he said which proxy service he used -- note to criminals: if you want to get away with something, don't brag about how you did it!
Your examples restrict the permissions of a service, or of closed information.
DRM is an attempt to restrict permissions of software or information on the system of a user who otherwise has complete control because it's their system.
To give an analogy, permissions restrict normal users because normal users don't have an expectation of control. DRM attempts to restrict root.
Huh. So were the articles / categories in question copying information by using the same market areas? And if so, how can they claim copyright over "the area of Toledo"?
I realize this is more complicated than it seems at first glance, but it still seems frivolous on Nielson's part. It's a shame that the DMCA requires such quick action on Wikipedia's part (i.e. deleting the articles in question rather than updating them to remove the "copyrighted" information).
Yeah, I just noticed that looking at the talk page. So wait, are Nielson claiming copyright over a number? A number clearly publicly available since Wikipedia can link to their results?
Nano's actually decent for coding as well. You can set it up to do tab completion, code colourization, and other things one normally sees in GUI code editors.
I realize the parent was a troll but there is truth here. You're going to let your son think he can do whatever the fuck he wants with impunity through violence.
Oh, I know that being an admin just gives you "the tools". There is an unseen power that it gives those who choose to abuse it though, and that is the ability to threaten and put pressure on those who disagree with them, because they can block them.
Furthermore, most editors wouldn't think about reverting an incorrect admin edit, simply because that person is an admin. As I said in another post, if someone does contest an admin edit on the talk page, they're likely to be labelled a troll, or told that they're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or other such "policy-based" veiled threats.
In my experience at Slashdot (and I have quite a bit, if you look at my user summary... I think I started in 2001 or 2002), if you present an argument against the general consensus in a way that is thought-out, well-spoken, and most importantly not insulting, you'll get modded up.
Here, though, I think you're missing the point, and that is that I posted in several threads, if not my initial comment (I was the OP), that a) there is a bias in what administrators will vote to delete even if they find other policy reasons to do so, and b) that verifiability itself needs to be opened up so that first-party sources like the ones in the Warhammer article are accepted as sources in certain circumstances.
Let's take a look at what you said.
Your first line exclaimed your shock that many people did not look at (or possibly even know about) Wikipedia policies, and were thus simply going along with the "Slashdot flow". You then proceeded to beat us over the head with it by copying in place the notability guideline.
I made it very clear in my initial comment that I knew about Wikipedia policies (by mentioning three of the most common reasons for deletion); I've also been a Wikipedia contributor for a long time, though not nearly as much as a Slashdot user. I'm fully aware of the varying guidelines that Wikipedia has in place. You made the assumption that I, and those who agreed with me, did not know about the guideline you posted.
This, in itself, is insulting, and probably why those who modded you down did so.
You then proceeded to call those interested in such 'fancruft' topics "poor, oppressed sci-fi trivia cataloguers."
You then went on for a while about how Wikipedia was the be-all and end-all of websites, and how dare we think differently from their policies? (Of course, you shaded this by making the straw man that we want Wikipedia to accept everything we type into it, which nobody in this discussion has said.)
And to finish up, you claimed that "the sobbing ignorance on this whole page is depressing," again insulting those who would argue with Wikipedia guidelines.
I never directly insulted anyone in my initial post, and made my assumption in a positive direction -- that most people reading this article already have a basic grasp of Wikipedia policies, and, like I do, may disagree with them.
In summary, when debating, if you want to win minds over, do not:
insult them
assume their ignorance
call them names
If you avoid these things, and present a well thought-out idea (which, if you had written things differently, your initial post could have been), the idea might actually contribute to the discussion, rather than being mixed in with insults and assumptions about those with whom it disagrees.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
The whole point of moderation is to keep a certain non-negative tone of discussion on Slashdot, which, IMHO, is why people keep coming back. For all its faults, the moderation system brings interesting, insightful posts to the forefront while keeping those posts that have degenerated into immature arguments from being seen. This is what has happened to you here.
(PS: It looks like your default posting karma has been taken down to -1. You could probably make a new account if you want to start posting at 1 again.)
I think the ad was great. I think they referred to the Apple ads in passing at the beginning and grew it out to be a message that people can feel good about running Microsoft.
They made a really, really good move firing the marketing team who made the Bill and Jerry ads.
Well, moving it to the talk page is indeed better than deleting it, so kudos for that. I think, though, that while some editors may be lazy in not trying to merge their new information into the article instead of just plopping it into the trivia section, it may not be trivia as you define it here.
What annoys me though is when an entire article is deleted as "fancruft" (and while arguments to avoid does advise against this, it does happen). While AfD isn't a vote (anymore), numbers are still ultimately important to the closing admin, and with deletionists usually more involved in AfD discussions, they can usually "pile-on" arguments about verifiability, notability, etc. These arguments may or may not be true, but the sheer number of "nonvotes" will usually win over an AfD to the delete side because more members are interested in removing the article for different reasons than the ones they're giving (again, they don't like it) than those who are trying to defend it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I wasn't really saying that any iteration of their claim actually had merit, just that they seemed to not put any real effort into the thing, and ended up making it so preposterous that any judge with even an inkling of technical knowledge should laugh them out of the courtroom.
*whoosh*
(Dude's creating trademark confusion, methinks.)
Yeah, but honestly, I wonder if they even sent them an email before suing them in federal court. And even then, couldn't they have found some sort of invasion of privacy statute?
I realize the point of this suit is to get them to settle and just stop linking, but at least try to make it sound legitimate.
The sad part is that it's a really, really common real-life case.
Note: If you tick the last box, you will be classed as a terrorist.
You mean this one? Seems fine to me.
(Likely the article just linked to the wrong post or something.)
Even as a discussion, there are far more well-reasoned keeps than deletes in that discussion.
Which is bullshit, when you look at the actual votes. (Or "non-votes", as I'm sure someone will bring up.)
It should have been given a "keep".
Mods (including myself) often give funny posts +1, Insightful or +1, Underrated because +1, Funny gives the poster no karma, and so if that moderation later gets countered with a -1, the user ultimately loses one point of karma, even though their post breaks even.
/b/ is the center of the internets.
OK, OK. /b/ is an image board on 4chan where many memes originate, and where a lot of actions by Anonymous are talked about. Anonymous pretty much originated from 4chan (among a few other sites) because of their "forced-anon" rule, which basically forces everyone to post anonymously.
Encyclopedia Dramatica has more but fair warning, it's definitely NSFW (as is /b/ itself).
Cracker is an idiot. Ever hear of Tor? Or better yet, post the information on something like Freenet and just advertise it on Freenet somehow and let other people get the information out to the main web.
Of course, the fact that he posted his nick on /b/ when it's usually forced-anon anyway means he basically confessed. Not to mention that he said which proxy service he used -- note to criminals: if you want to get away with something, don't brag about how you did it!
No, your examples are not DRM.
Your examples restrict the permissions of a service, or of closed information.
DRM is an attempt to restrict permissions of software or information on the system of a user who otherwise has complete control because it's their system.
To give an analogy, permissions restrict normal users because normal users don't have an expectation of control. DRM attempts to restrict root.
Huh. So were the articles / categories in question copying information by using the same market areas? And if so, how can they claim copyright over "the area of Toledo"?
I realize this is more complicated than it seems at first glance, but it still seems frivolous on Nielson's part. It's a shame that the DMCA requires such quick action on Wikipedia's part (i.e. deleting the articles in question rather than updating them to remove the "copyrighted" information).
Nope! Cause, y'know, it's a text editor. It does good at being a text editor.
(Yeah, I know you're talking about emacs. I don't care.)
Yeah, I just noticed that looking at the talk page. So wait, are Nielson claiming copyright over a number? A number clearly publicly available since Wikipedia can link to their results?
Apparently Toledo TV has been undeleted. (Mirror in case it goes again.)
How in God's name is an association of TV station titles to markets in which they can be received copyrightable?
Nano's actually decent for coding as well. You can set it up to do tab completion, code colourization, and other things one normally sees in GUI code editors.
True, but the game is such that it's probably the son initiating it in the first place.
I realize the parent was a troll but there is truth here. You're going to let your son think he can do whatever the fuck he wants with impunity through violence.
Oh, I know that being an admin just gives you "the tools". There is an unseen power that it gives those who choose to abuse it though, and that is the ability to threaten and put pressure on those who disagree with them, because they can block them.
Furthermore, most editors wouldn't think about reverting an incorrect admin edit, simply because that person is an admin. As I said in another post, if someone does contest an admin edit on the talk page, they're likely to be labelled a troll, or told that they're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or other such "policy-based" veiled threats.
In my experience at Slashdot (and I have quite a bit, if you look at my user summary... I think I started in 2001 or 2002), if you present an argument against the general consensus in a way that is thought-out, well-spoken, and most importantly not insulting , you'll get modded up.
Here, though, I think you're missing the point, and that is that I posted in several threads, if not my initial comment (I was the OP), that a) there is a bias in what administrators will vote to delete even if they find other policy reasons to do so, and b) that verifiability itself needs to be opened up so that first-party sources like the ones in the Warhammer article are accepted as sources in certain circumstances.
Let's take a look at what you said.
Your first line exclaimed your shock that many people did not look at (or possibly even know about) Wikipedia policies, and were thus simply going along with the "Slashdot flow". You then proceeded to beat us over the head with it by copying in place the notability guideline.
I made it very clear in my initial comment that I knew about Wikipedia policies (by mentioning three of the most common reasons for deletion); I've also been a Wikipedia contributor for a long time, though not nearly as much as a Slashdot user. I'm fully aware of the varying guidelines that Wikipedia has in place. You made the assumption that I, and those who agreed with me, did not know about the guideline you posted.
This, in itself, is insulting, and probably why those who modded you down did so.
You then proceeded to call those interested in such 'fancruft' topics "poor, oppressed sci-fi trivia cataloguers."
You then went on for a while about how Wikipedia was the be-all and end-all of websites, and how dare we think differently from their policies? (Of course, you shaded this by making the straw man that we want Wikipedia to accept everything we type into it, which nobody in this discussion has said.)
And to finish up, you claimed that "the sobbing ignorance on this whole page is depressing," again insulting those who would argue with Wikipedia guidelines.
I never directly insulted anyone in my initial post, and made my assumption in a positive direction -- that most people reading this article already have a basic grasp of Wikipedia policies, and, like I do, may disagree with them.
In summary, when debating, if you want to win minds over, do not:
If you avoid these things, and present a well thought-out idea (which, if you had written things differently, your initial post could have been), the idea might actually contribute to the discussion, rather than being mixed in with insults and assumptions about those with whom it disagrees.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
The whole point of moderation is to keep a certain non-negative tone of discussion on Slashdot, which, IMHO, is why people keep coming back. For all its faults, the moderation system brings interesting, insightful posts to the forefront while keeping those posts that have degenerated into immature arguments from being seen. This is what has happened to you here.
(PS: It looks like your default posting karma has been taken down to -1. You could probably make a new account if you want to start posting at 1 again.)
I think the ad was great. I think they referred to the Apple ads in passing at the beginning and grew it out to be a message that people can feel good about running Microsoft.
They made a really, really good move firing the marketing team who made the Bill and Jerry ads.
Ugh, that was a singularly bad pun.
Well, moving it to the talk page is indeed better than deleting it, so kudos for that. I think, though, that while some editors may be lazy in not trying to merge their new information into the article instead of just plopping it into the trivia section, it may not be trivia as you define it here.
What annoys me though is when an entire article is deleted as "fancruft" (and while arguments to avoid does advise against this, it does happen). While AfD isn't a vote (anymore), numbers are still ultimately important to the closing admin, and with deletionists usually more involved in AfD discussions, they can usually "pile-on" arguments about verifiability, notability, etc. These arguments may or may not be true, but the sheer number of "nonvotes" will usually win over an AfD to the delete side because more members are interested in removing the article for different reasons than the ones they're giving (again, they don't like it) than those who are trying to defend it.
Or maybe some of the mods think you're trolling.
Convince them otherwise. If it is, in fact, unfair, it will be metamodded as such and the unfair moderations will disappear.
I doubt they will though.