If you honestly think if a la carte ever came about and the cable and media companies would not try and sell it as a better, value added, therefore more expensive, service, well then you're out of your god-damned mind John McCain.
The problem is not so simple though. You cant quantify something as subjective as vandalism. You cant reduce it to your mathematical formula no matter how statistically fancy your 6 page pdf is.
I had a particularly nasty run it with cluebot where I removed large portions of spam from an article, only to have cluebot revert it back and put the spam back in. When I again removed the spam, some other editor strolled by and again put the spam back in because he trusted the bot more than humans and he didnt read the talk page where many had requested the removal of this spam. Finally, after a rather rude conversation with the human he realized he had no business reverting it. This person was a long time editor and contributor too but it just serves as an example that any criteria used to determine spam is based upon assumptions. Assumptions that it will be true in other cases and assumptions that others will agree with the classification.
The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a community edited encyclopedia. I have no interest in a computer edited encyclopedia. If people want to program bots to review an editor's work, perhaps we should program bots to write the work? Perhaps you can call it Botopedia. Furthermore, many of the bots ask you to report false positive to their personal pages off of Wikipedia's website on some other.com or.edu domain. They ask you to be accountable to them, but who are they accountable to? What's to stop spammers from programming bots to annoy editors as a phishing exercise?
Now don't get me wrong though, if someone wants to use a bot to aid in finding vandalism, that would help. But if the system is so frail that Wikipedia cant exist without computer program editors, It may be time to revisit the system. As others have stated, pushing edits into a queue would be much more sane than direct to live edits.
Editing bots are wrong for Wikipedia, and if they allow it they are letting go of their vision of community participation in favor of the visions (or delusions) of grand technological solutions.
They only seem to market themselves by objectifying women and their services don't seem low priced or high quality. Frankly I think they are an embarrassment to the tech world.
Don't appologize, the article itself is fake trolling FUD. No full time developer of anything would confuse his as the only platform with roll overs and yet PLUG the ipad in the first sentence.
I wonder if Slashdot will follow up on the anti-adobe fake-flash-developer cant-handle-mobile-development-becuase-there-are-no-roll-overs troll that's further down? Yeah unlikely.
If you read the emails by the W3C WG, they dismissed that as utter nonsense and normal procedure and rightly criticized those accusing Adobe as being extremely unprofessional.
In order for the app store to be a viable business Apple has to protect the IP of the app holders.
Oh? Google doesn't ban people installing outside apps in Android. Steam doesn't ban people pirating PhotoShop. New Egg doesn't ban customers with pirated versions of Windows. Please tell me what business school is teaching this concept that a viable retail software business must also police its customers, so that we may more easily recognize you people.;)
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.
So you likely have a 4 year old processor. Apple (I think) always has about a year lag in putting the chips into production from when Intel releases them. How many modern applications run super smoothly on your MBP?
Why? Adobe is not allowed to progress? How many modern applications can you run on an old single core computer? How about a computer with 128 megs of RAM? Or how about a 1 GB hard drive? This idea is such nonsense.
How old is your dual core? A lot of Mac processor are woefully out of date. If you're running a Core 2 Duo from 2006 then I bet just about everything sucks. Also, people used to complain that Flash wasn't taking advantage of multiple cores, now it seems they complain that it does. Good old Slashdot. The Flash hate continues unabated.
Adjusted there means after deductions. And I'm not sure if that includes cap gains taxes (though I think it does). However, the whole comparison is faulty. If you believe that a certain segment of the population are too poor to pay taxes than it would throw off the "share" that everyone else pays considerably. Furthermore, the usefulness of finding out who pays the biggest share of the taxes, versus who makes the biggest share of the overall money earned is of dubious value. A better comparison might be what the people on the bottom and middle rungs of the tax paying public pay as a percent of their total income compared to the percent those on the top pay.
For example: (rough numbers)
Someone making $35,000 might pay about $9000 (25%) in taxes.
However someone making $350,000 might pay $115,000 (33%)
So while the higher earner is making 10 times as much money he is paying 12 times as much in taxes which is only 7% more of his income. Doesn't seem like a huge burden to me.
Considering:
The huge benefits that someone making that level of money enjoys,
The fact that the opportunity to make that income was not created in a vacuum, but rather in a society with social services and a government providing stability,
the diminishing marginal utility of income,
Then the argument that the rich bear some undue burden because their "share" of the total taxes paid is higher, is quite ridiculous.
When you think about it, wireless speeds are stating to catch up to hard wired connections. Over the next 10-20 years I think we're going to see a shift away from landlines. In terms of net neutrality this should mean there will be numerous companies competing in the wireless network market (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint). This is good because ultimately users would not stand for gatekeepers that throttle -- therefore competition and user choice is paramount here. What worries me is device lock-in and two year contracts. Google's latest move with the N1 is starting to make a bit more sense now.
One of the things my bank does for their mobile banking application (which is contracted out to another company) is to give you a special code that is akin to a extra "mobile password." You get this code from the bank's website after putting in your mobile phone number. You then must enter it on your phone and "activate" that phone to access your account. At any time also, you can go into the website and "deactivate" the device. At no time do you ever enter your banking login details into your phone, only this special code which is tied to you phone number, mobile OS, and carrier (that you can deactivate at any time) is entered into your phone.
It's not perfect security, but it certainly puts up a few more decent hurdles against phishing.
Slashdot Mirror
If you honestly think if a la carte ever came about and the cable and media companies would not try and sell it as a better, value added, therefore more expensive, service, well then you're out of your god-damned mind John McCain.
The problem is not so simple though. You cant quantify something as subjective as vandalism. You cant reduce it to your mathematical formula no matter how statistically fancy your 6 page pdf is.
.com or .edu domain. They ask you to be accountable to them, but who are they accountable to? What's to stop spammers from programming bots to annoy editors as a phishing exercise?
I had a particularly nasty run it with cluebot where I removed large portions of spam from an article, only to have cluebot revert it back and put the spam back in. When I again removed the spam, some other editor strolled by and again put the spam back in because he trusted the bot more than humans and he didnt read the talk page where many had requested the removal of this spam. Finally, after a rather rude conversation with the human he realized he had no business reverting it. This person was a long time editor and contributor too but it just serves as an example that any criteria used to determine spam is based upon assumptions. Assumptions that it will be true in other cases and assumptions that others will agree with the classification.
The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a community edited encyclopedia. I have no interest in a computer edited encyclopedia. If people want to program bots to review an editor's work, perhaps we should program bots to write the work? Perhaps you can call it Botopedia. Furthermore, many of the bots ask you to report false positive to their personal pages off of Wikipedia's website on some other
Now don't get me wrong though, if someone wants to use a bot to aid in finding vandalism, that would help. But if the system is so frail that Wikipedia cant exist without computer program editors, It may be time to revisit the system. As others have stated, pushing edits into a queue would be much more sane than direct to live edits.
Editing bots are wrong for Wikipedia, and if they allow it they are letting go of their vision of community participation in favor of the visions (or delusions) of grand technological solutions.
It's not?
They only seem to market themselves by objectifying women and their services don't seem low priced or high quality. Frankly I think they are an embarrassment to the tech world.
Queue the spelling Nazis?
Who said graphics are the most important thing? Why do people always defensively trot out this argument when advances are made in graphics?
Don't appologize, the article itself is fake trolling FUD. No full time developer of anything would confuse his as the only platform with roll overs and yet PLUG the ipad in the first sentence.
I wonder if Slashdot will follow up on the anti-adobe fake-flash-developer cant-handle-mobile-development-becuase-there-are-no-roll-overs troll that's further down? Yeah unlikely.
If you read the emails by the W3C WG, they dismissed that as utter nonsense and normal procedure and rightly criticized those accusing Adobe as being extremely unprofessional.
In order for the app store to be a viable business Apple has to protect the IP of the app holders.
Oh? Google doesn't ban people installing outside apps in Android. Steam doesn't ban people pirating PhotoShop. New Egg doesn't ban customers with pirated versions of Windows. Please tell me what business school is teaching this concept that a viable retail software business must also police its customers, so that we may more easily recognize you people. ;)
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.
I was trying to teach that cat a lesson. How will he learn if the phone keeps rescuing him?
So you likely have a 4 year old processor. Apple (I think) always has about a year lag in putting the chips into production from when Intel releases them. How many modern applications run super smoothly on your MBP?
Why? Adobe is not allowed to progress? How many modern applications can you run on an old single core computer? How about a computer with 128 megs of RAM? Or how about a 1 GB hard drive? This idea is such nonsense.
How many exploits are there for Flash? I cant imagine it's any more than Webkit itself.
Interestingly too the next version of the Flash IDE will have the option to cross compile down to the native iPhone format.
How old is your dual core? A lot of Mac processor are woefully out of date. If you're running a Core 2 Duo from 2006 then I bet just about everything sucks. Also, people used to complain that Flash wasn't taking advantage of multiple cores, now it seems they complain that it does. Good old Slashdot. The Flash hate continues unabated.
What a strange comment, you just make larger buttons for a finger to press them. The same way all interfaces work on a mobile platforms.
For example: (rough numbers)
Someone making $35,000 might pay about $9000 (25%) in taxes. However someone making $350,000 might pay $115,000 (33%)
So while the higher earner is making 10 times as much money he is paying 12 times as much in taxes which is only 7% more of his income. Doesn't seem like a huge burden to me.
Considering:
Then the argument that the rich bear some undue burden because their "share" of the total taxes paid is higher, is quite ridiculous.
Android makes impressive gains in Q4
They went from 1% to 16% in a year.
Android gone nowhere? Are you just making stuff up?
Google's Android's market share compares well with Apple's iPhone
And that's from May, as in before the Droid hit the market.
So you own a jump to conclusions mat too? I thought I was the only one.
When you think about it, wireless speeds are stating to catch up to hard wired connections. Over the next 10-20 years I think we're going to see a shift away from landlines. In terms of net neutrality this should mean there will be numerous companies competing in the wireless network market (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint). This is good because ultimately users would not stand for gatekeepers that throttle -- therefore competition and user choice is paramount here. What worries me is device lock-in and two year contracts. Google's latest move with the N1 is starting to make a bit more sense now.
Indeed, Gawker is literally only one step up the evolutionary ladder from TMZ.
Why anyone takes them seriously is beyond me.
One of the things my bank does for their mobile banking application (which is contracted out to another company) is to give you a special code that is akin to a extra "mobile password." You get this code from the bank's website after putting in your mobile phone number. You then must enter it on your phone and "activate" that phone to access your account. At any time also, you can go into the website and "deactivate" the device. At no time do you ever enter your banking login details into your phone, only this special code which is tied to you phone number, mobile OS, and carrier (that you can deactivate at any time) is entered into your phone.
It's not perfect security, but it certainly puts up a few more decent hurdles against phishing.