Let's drop the charade that OO.o and MS Office are interchangable. I'm as big an open source fan as anybody but OO.o simply cannot compete yet. Read this bug report/feature request for an example; it's been almost five years and we've STILL waiting for some very basic statistical functionality in Calc. It's frustrating little things like this that require me to keep a copy of Windows & MS Office around.
Follow your own advice and go there and see if you can view anybody's Sitekey. You won't be able to without being able to answer one of their security questions. The consequences of this have been hashed out extensively already in this discussion so I won't repeat them.
(BTW, since when did the First Amendment - which explicitly states in its very first word that it applies only to Congress - restrict state governments?)
I think paid subscriptions will drive the next successful social networking site.
There's a reason that Myspace is considered the cesspool of the internet; it has a reputation as being full of either naive teenage girls or sex predators. And quite rightfully so, as its current setup caters to the first and so by extension, the second, by making the process of posting a personal profile as simple as a few clicks.
Personally I do not have an account on there even though most of my friends do, for several reasons but the above being one of them. If I am going to get involved in an online community, including having personal information publicly displayed, it would be more reassuring me to know that not every nutjob who wants to can come across it. This is why I do use and enjoy Facebook, as you must either be friends with a person or be a member of their network (by school or employer) to view their complete profile. I don't know everybody at my school but I tend to trust that few of my classmates are dangerous threats to my personal safety, so no harm done really.
So Facebook has that screening process, but its downside is that I can then only browse the profiles of people I go to school with. What if I want to meet people I have common interests with who I would be compatible with (as acquaintances, as mates, and everything in between), yet I still want there to be some sort of screening or filtering mechanism so that I'm not wading through scum? I could conceive of a service where you pay for some sort of an initial background check (nothing too severe in most cases, maybe a check to see where you work/go to school, criminal background, and you fill out a questionnaire) and if you are accepted, a monthly subscription to remain a member of the network.
There could be different levels of subscription (the higher ones being able to view the profiles of the lower ones, but not the other way around) and varying depths of background checks (the higher ones requiring references). Hell, there could be a free level of service with no check, and maybe a minimal one above it that just checks to see that you aren't a registered sex offender or have been convicted of a felony in the lsat 12 months. From there you could keep making it more and more restrictive, eventually not just weeding out criminals or potential criminals but also people who simply aren't as interesting, successful, and/or accomplished, and to belong to the higher, elite "levels" would carry a much higher subscription fee (which doubly assures you that the random weirdos and creeps will generally not be able to see you).
The only roadblock, as with all sites of this nature, would be getting it started. If I were running it I would cater first to professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and executives, and if I could establish that base then the lower "levels" would fill themselves quickly as the site built its name recognition.
Hang on -- are you out of your fucking mind? People are THANKED when they make grammatical corrections. What in the world would anybody revert a grammatical correction for? I DARE you to show me your accounts where you've done that and had it reverted soon after. Chances are if that happened you weren't just fixing grammar, you were inserting other garbage that didn't deserve to be there.
The nice thing about Wikis is that they keep track of each individual change. No vague or mysterious claims permitted; every edit is well documented. I hereby call you on your bullshit and ask you to produce the "diffs".
For example, the Polish version has about double the amount of articles as the Spanish version, although Spanish is arguably used and spoken by far more people all over the world. Same thing with Esperanto and Arabic.
Spanish is a unique case, as a significant portion of the Spanish Wikipedia userbase split off to form the Enciclopedia Libre some time ago. You can read more about that here.
It looks like this is everybody's first experience with John Gibson. Whether it's an act or not (an important consideration), he can be counted on for dimwitted and thoughtless comments every day when his show airs. For example, take a look at this instance where he appears to be urging white Americans to reproduce more so that Hispanics don't become a majority in the future.
Maybe I'm out of the mainstream on this but I don't see this as an issue at all.
I don't like spam any more than anybody else does here but it's an unfortunate fact of life that is here to stay as long as we are using the current e-mail system. Getting mad at people for spamming under this system of total anonymity and lack of accountability is like getting mad at your cat for eating the food you left on the kitchen table before you left. All we can really do is find a way to deal with the spam while we think of a new way to go about things.
That said, compared to other spams this is relatively benign. Who is hurt here (besides the fact that it clogs our inboxes and spam filters, which as I said is a fact of life and is going to happen anyway)? Are we afraid that people will be tricked into buying these stocks and then lose money when they plummet? Because that sounds to me like a good way to teach people not to take financial advice from complete strangers. The law is not for babying people and shielding them from all discomfort; sometimes people need to take a lesson or two at the school of hard knocks.
You mean like they did on December 26, 1996? Yes, how unoriginal of them, trying to pull a fast one on us knowing full well that Google would do the same almost a half decade later.
Most Wikipedia criticisms can be answered the same way. It is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which is its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. That needs to be kept in mind when using it as a reference (and particularly so with controversial subjects). If people do not the solution is not to slam the entire idea and write it off as a disaster -- the solution is to simply make sure it is more clear to people that Wikipedia is not authoritative and at any particular moment the version of the article you are viewing might be an inaccurate one. For most purposes, the risk of that happening is far outweighed by the strong likelihood that you are getting an article so high in quality that it leaves Britannica and Encarta in the dust (assuming they even cover that topic).
One person who is causing real headaches for Wikipedia is Daniel Brandt, who is upset that there is an article about him that may potentially contain untruths about him. His response is to wage war against the encyclopedia and its administrators and most prominent users. A better idea for him and everybody, one that wouldn't be futile and one that would save everybody a lot of trouble, would be to use your soapbox to recognize the extraordinarily high quality product the Wikipedia project makes available to web users for free, while being very vocal and clear about its weaknesses that most people might not understand.
It is mostly for creative/artistic reasons and preserving the integrity of the film as the creators intended it.
From the article:
Michael Apted, the president of the Directors Guild of America, said directors could feel vindicated by the decision.
"These films carry our name and reflect our reputations. So we have great passion about protecting our work... against unauthorized editing," said Apted in a statement on the guild's website.
"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor."
Basically if the moviemakers didn't think a nude scene or excessive violence was necessary to conveying the essential story, they wouldn't have included it. In reality though I think this is just the movie industry realizing that they were missing out on a lucrative market that they themselves could have been filling.
Check out this disaster in Breezewood, PA. They actually interrupt the interstate and make you drive through the middle of town (lined with hotels, fast food, and the like).
And let me echo the original poster's sentiments, but add that by no means is that situation limited to just *northwest* Pennsylvania, but really anything under the governance of PennDOT.
This exact thing happened to me last year. I called to cancel at the end of the trial and never used the account again. I was billed for it the next month as apparently the last operator mistook my "I have no use fo r this account, please cancel it" for "I think I'll give it another try". The manager I then spoke to was, of course, not interested in helping me in any way, saying that refunds are not issued for past months under any circumstances.
What I want to know is, why is this so widespread? Obviously the operator in the linked article was just a person at their job, and it's hard to imagine why he would have such a personal interest in keeping the customer from cancelling his account. Do they get a commission every time they dissuade someone? That's the only thing I could imagine.
I wish Weird Al was reading this thread. I would just tell him that this is one of the reasons why the major recording industry institutions are bad for the consumer, bad for the artist, and bad for music in general. And I would hope that he understands that for this very reason, I can't support the practices of these companies by having nearly all of the money I spend on an album going towards reinforcing their system of screwing everybody involved. I hope he survives without the fifty cents he would have gotten, but I will sleep BETTER at night knowing I didn't finance these morally bankrupt assclowns.
And you're a fool if you think that a paper encyclopedia is more reliable. Wikipedia has serious problems, I grant you (they really need a slashdot-style moderation system--this "everyone has equal power over each other" system is BS.), but at least the errors and biases that crop up are usually (eventually) addressed. Wikipedia is better at keeping up to date, too.
I don't think you understood the grandparent's comment. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a primary source, it is a starting point for research. Wikipedia can be a great resource if the article you are reading is heavily sourced such that any of the information in it can be traced to a real, reliable source (which you can then cite to others), or if you're reading an article such as a well-written mathematical article whose contents can be observed to be correct based upon your own existing knowledge of the topic (although external sources help there too).
However, in the case of the article "Christian Science Monitor", none of the information pertaining to the newspaper is sourced (indeed the only external source is a newspaper article about freelance reporter/hostage Jill Carroll). When you said "I have heard...", you in no way further supported yourself by then saying that "Wikipedia confirms" because in both cases you are only telling your reader on Slashdot that random, anonymous people said something.
Can you see how things that "you have heard" variously could also tend to include things that could be classified as popular misconceptions? And these things, as they are popularly believed, can and will be added to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit by well-meaning but misguided editors -- to say nothing of the vandals that get off by inserting incorrect information into articles surreptitiously. This is why Wikipedia forbids original research and emphasizes that all contributions be verifiable by reliable sources. The CSM article, sadly, fails these two standards miserably.
Now don't bother proving to me that CSM runs a religious article every issue. I already know that. A better idea would be to add a source or two to the Wikipedia article.
30 words per minute accurately is much faster then 100 words per minute inaccurately.
This is like saying that 4 oz. of iron filings weighs more than a pound of feathers. If you can type 100 words in a minute while punching backspace all the time, you have typed over three times as many as the person who carefully makes sure all his keystrokes are correct.
Look at the facts. You can't connect the PSP to any other display device. Movie watching is a social thing. You aren't going to invite your buddies over and watch a movie crowded around a PSP.
No but you will bring it with you on an airplane or a train so you can pass the time. Or maybe you take it with you and sit outside in the sun. Movie watching can be a social thing but it can also be something you do alone (by choice or by chance).
The issues are the same. The supposed point of an XXX domain would be certain people can be prevented from visiting porn sites. Everyone assumes that would just mean kids, but it would include a lot of adults actually -- adults with credit cards. Examples include men in churches that place web filters on followers' computers, pussy-whipped husbands who agree to place filters on their computers (or who have them on there because of their kids and couldn't get their wife to agree to make an exception for them), or anyone using some sort of public internet connection that might be filtered. In these cases, there would be a huge "underground" market to circumvent the.xxx (or if you prefer) filter because the money, most certainly, would be there.
Not that I really care about moderation or need karma, but what a testament to the idiocy of some moderators when my post is modded down -1 redundant while a nearly identical post posted after mine is modded up insightful. Just another reason I read at -1.
(Special thanks to Tor which allows me to continue posting to Slashdot even after rogue moderation gets me banned.)
Slashdot Mirror
Let's drop the charade that OO.o and MS Office are interchangable. I'm as big an open source fan as anybody but OO.o simply cannot compete yet. Read this bug report/feature request for an example; it's been almost five years and we've STILL waiting for some very basic statistical functionality in Calc. It's frustrating little things like this that require me to keep a copy of Windows & MS Office around.
Follow your own advice and go there and see if you can view anybody's Sitekey. You won't be able to without being able to answer one of their security questions. The consequences of this have been hashed out extensively already in this discussion so I won't repeat them.
That article is a must-read. Also interesting is this Java traffic simulator which demonstrates all the ways that traffic jams can form.
I think paid subscriptions will drive the next successful social networking site.
There's a reason that Myspace is considered the cesspool of the internet; it has a reputation as being full of either naive teenage girls or sex predators. And quite rightfully so, as its current setup caters to the first and so by extension, the second, by making the process of posting a personal profile as simple as a few clicks.
Personally I do not have an account on there even though most of my friends do, for several reasons but the above being one of them. If I am going to get involved in an online community, including having personal information publicly displayed, it would be more reassuring me to know that not every nutjob who wants to can come across it. This is why I do use and enjoy Facebook, as you must either be friends with a person or be a member of their network (by school or employer) to view their complete profile. I don't know everybody at my school but I tend to trust that few of my classmates are dangerous threats to my personal safety, so no harm done really.
So Facebook has that screening process, but its downside is that I can then only browse the profiles of people I go to school with. What if I want to meet people I have common interests with who I would be compatible with (as acquaintances, as mates, and everything in between), yet I still want there to be some sort of screening or filtering mechanism so that I'm not wading through scum? I could conceive of a service where you pay for some sort of an initial background check (nothing too severe in most cases, maybe a check to see where you work/go to school, criminal background, and you fill out a questionnaire) and if you are accepted, a monthly subscription to remain a member of the network.
There could be different levels of subscription (the higher ones being able to view the profiles of the lower ones, but not the other way around) and varying depths of background checks (the higher ones requiring references). Hell, there could be a free level of service with no check, and maybe a minimal one above it that just checks to see that you aren't a registered sex offender or have been convicted of a felony in the lsat 12 months. From there you could keep making it more and more restrictive, eventually not just weeding out criminals or potential criminals but also people who simply aren't as interesting, successful, and/or accomplished, and to belong to the higher, elite "levels" would carry a much higher subscription fee (which doubly assures you that the random weirdos and creeps will generally not be able to see you).
The only roadblock, as with all sites of this nature, would be getting it started. If I were running it I would cater first to professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and executives, and if I could establish that base then the lower "levels" would fill themselves quickly as the site built its name recognition.
Hang on -- are you out of your fucking mind? People are THANKED when they make grammatical corrections. What in the world would anybody revert a grammatical correction for? I DARE you to show me your accounts where you've done that and had it reverted soon after. Chances are if that happened you weren't just fixing grammar, you were inserting other garbage that didn't deserve to be there.
The nice thing about Wikis is that they keep track of each individual change. No vague or mysterious claims permitted; every edit is well documented. I hereby call you on your bullshit and ask you to produce the "diffs".
Spanish is a unique case, as a significant portion of the Spanish Wikipedia userbase split off to form the Enciclopedia Libre some time ago. You can read more about that here.
It looks like this is everybody's first experience with John Gibson. Whether it's an act or not (an important consideration), he can be counted on for dimwitted and thoughtless comments every day when his show airs. For example, take a look at this instance where he appears to be urging white Americans to reproduce more so that Hispanics don't become a majority in the future.
Maybe I'm out of the mainstream on this but I don't see this as an issue at all.
I don't like spam any more than anybody else does here but it's an unfortunate fact of life that is here to stay as long as we are using the current e-mail system. Getting mad at people for spamming under this system of total anonymity and lack of accountability is like getting mad at your cat for eating the food you left on the kitchen table before you left. All we can really do is find a way to deal with the spam while we think of a new way to go about things.
That said, compared to other spams this is relatively benign. Who is hurt here (besides the fact that it clogs our inboxes and spam filters, which as I said is a fact of life and is going to happen anyway)? Are we afraid that people will be tricked into buying these stocks and then lose money when they plummet? Because that sounds to me like a good way to teach people not to take financial advice from complete strangers. The law is not for babying people and shielding them from all discomfort; sometimes people need to take a lesson or two at the school of hard knocks.
You mean like they did on December 26, 1996? Yes, how unoriginal of them, trying to pull a fast one on us knowing full well that Google would do the same almost a half decade later.
Most Wikipedia criticisms can be answered the same way. It is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which is its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. That needs to be kept in mind when using it as a reference (and particularly so with controversial subjects). If people do not the solution is not to slam the entire idea and write it off as a disaster -- the solution is to simply make sure it is more clear to people that Wikipedia is not authoritative and at any particular moment the version of the article you are viewing might be an inaccurate one. For most purposes, the risk of that happening is far outweighed by the strong likelihood that you are getting an article so high in quality that it leaves Britannica and Encarta in the dust (assuming they even cover that topic).
One person who is causing real headaches for Wikipedia is Daniel Brandt, who is upset that there is an article about him that may potentially contain untruths about him. His response is to wage war against the encyclopedia and its administrators and most prominent users. A better idea for him and everybody, one that wouldn't be futile and one that would save everybody a lot of trouble, would be to use your soapbox to recognize the extraordinarily high quality product the Wikipedia project makes available to web users for free, while being very vocal and clear about its weaknesses that most people might not understand.
From the article:
Basically if the moviemakers didn't think a nude scene or excessive violence was necessary to conveying the essential story, they wouldn't have included it. In reality though I think this is just the movie industry realizing that they were missing out on a lucrative market that they themselves could have been filling.
Done. I hope others will join me.
Oops. That's what I get for doing it off the top of my head :)
Check out this disaster in Breezewood, PA. They actually interrupt the interstate and make you drive through the middle of town (lined with hotels, fast food, and the like).
And let me echo the original poster's sentiments, but add that by no means is that situation limited to just *northwest* Pennsylvania, but really anything under the governance of PennDOT.
This exact thing happened to me last year. I called to cancel at the end of the trial and never used the account again. I was billed for it the next month as apparently the last operator mistook my "I have no use fo r this account, please cancel it" for "I think I'll give it another try". The manager I then spoke to was, of course, not interested in helping me in any way, saying that refunds are not issued for past months under any circumstances.
What I want to know is, why is this so widespread? Obviously the operator in the linked article was just a person at their job, and it's hard to imagine why he would have such a personal interest in keeping the customer from cancelling his account. Do they get a commission every time they dissuade someone? That's the only thing I could imagine.
I wish Weird Al was reading this thread. I would just tell him that this is one of the reasons why the major recording industry institutions are bad for the consumer, bad for the artist, and bad for music in general. And I would hope that he understands that for this very reason, I can't support the practices of these companies by having nearly all of the money I spend on an album going towards reinforcing their system of screwing everybody involved. I hope he survives without the fifty cents he would have gotten, but I will sleep BETTER at night knowing I didn't finance these morally bankrupt assclowns.
And you're a fool if you think that a paper encyclopedia is more reliable. Wikipedia has serious problems, I grant you (they really need a slashdot-style moderation system--this "everyone has equal power over each other" system is BS.), but at least the errors and biases that crop up are usually (eventually) addressed. Wikipedia is better at keeping up to date, too.
I don't think you understood the grandparent's comment. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a primary source, it is a starting point for research. Wikipedia can be a great resource if the article you are reading is heavily sourced such that any of the information in it can be traced to a real, reliable source (which you can then cite to others), or if you're reading an article such as a well-written mathematical article whose contents can be observed to be correct based upon your own existing knowledge of the topic (although external sources help there too).
However, in the case of the article "Christian Science Monitor", none of the information pertaining to the newspaper is sourced (indeed the only external source is a newspaper article about freelance reporter/hostage Jill Carroll). When you said "I have heard...", you in no way further supported yourself by then saying that "Wikipedia confirms" because in both cases you are only telling your reader on Slashdot that random, anonymous people said something.
Can you see how things that "you have heard" variously could also tend to include things that could be classified as popular misconceptions? And these things, as they are popularly believed, can and will be added to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit by well-meaning but misguided editors -- to say nothing of the vandals that get off by inserting incorrect information into articles surreptitiously. This is why Wikipedia forbids original research and emphasizes that all contributions be verifiable by reliable sources. The CSM article, sadly, fails these two standards miserably.
Now don't bother proving to me that CSM runs a religious article every issue. I already know that. A better idea would be to add a source or two to the Wikipedia article.
30 words per minute accurately is much faster then 100 words per minute inaccurately.
This is like saying that 4 oz. of iron filings weighs more than a pound of feathers. If you can type 100 words in a minute while punching backspace all the time, you have typed over three times as many as the person who carefully makes sure all his keystrokes are correct.
Look at the facts. You can't connect the PSP to any other display device. Movie watching is a social thing. You aren't going to invite your buddies over and watch a movie crowded around a PSP.
No but you will bring it with you on an airplane or a train so you can pass the time. Or maybe you take it with you and sit outside in the sun. Movie watching can be a social thing but it can also be something you do alone (by choice or by chance).
You are right about your other points.
The issues are the same. The supposed point of an XXX domain would be certain people can be prevented from visiting porn sites. Everyone assumes that would just mean kids, but it would include a lot of adults actually -- adults with credit cards. Examples include men in churches that place web filters on followers' computers, pussy-whipped husbands who agree to place filters on their computers (or who have them on there because of their kids and couldn't get their wife to agree to make an exception for them), or anyone using some sort of public internet connection that might be filtered. In these cases, there would be a huge "underground" market to circumvent the .xxx (or if you prefer) filter because the money, most certainly, would be there.
These people make other sacrifices for their chosen profession. This can be another one -- no movies while on call.
WTF "you make enough money already" what business ever thinks they make enough money?
Not that I really care about moderation or need karma, but what a testament to the idiocy of some moderators when my post is modded down -1 redundant while a nearly identical post posted after mine is modded up insightful. Just another reason I read at -1.
(Special thanks to Tor which allows me to continue posting to Slashdot even after rogue moderation gets me banned.)
Uhhh, am I missing something here? Isn't that an oxymoron? Didn't RTFA.