As far as I'm concerned, it's not immoral to block the insidious ads that divert attention from the main content. As such, I use the hosts file to block particular ad domains that I'm bothered by. As far as I'm concerned, that's helping the website - by blocking the ads, I'm more likely to read the content in full, and possibly go there more often, perhaps even tell other people about it (and those people are a lot less likely to block ads at all). But I don't block non-intrusive ads (Google ads and other textual ads, as well as some flash ads), because they don't affect my viewing at all. Morally, I believe that it's wrong to punish a website that shows me ads that I will notice, but not be hypnotized by (spank the monkey, shoot Osama in the face, etc.), because the website is actively trying to find ways to make money without annoying its customers.
The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up. Think about it - how many of us would personally watch LOGO, the Gay/Lesbian Network? Some, but not enough for it to survive without charging an insane amount per subscriber. How about a network like the old TechTV, or even G4? Most of us would, but most consumers wouldn't. Even networks that would appeal to everyone would have a tough time gaining ground once it went into effect. Would you call in to purchase a new network? Not unless it had a show you really, really wanted. You can make an argument that it should be based on who wants each network, and that you shouldn't pay for networks you won't watch, but I'd argue that package programming keeps the price down for all networks.
Perhaps the best move is to have some Google Blog entries on the main page. If done tactfully, they could easily inform users of new updates without becoming as bloated as Yahoo has.
Another poster mentioned, and I'm not sure if it's true, that TPB had an uncensored image service that may have been the culprit. If that's true, and that service was hosting child porn, and TPB wasn't doing anything about it, then it might be an appropriate move.
I disagree. Remember, the assassination is just 10 years removed from the time when a United States Representative beat another Representative with a cane on the House floor. Over time, we tend to remember the good things and gloss over the bad.
Re:Wikipedia is good for some things but not all
on
Is Wikipedia Failing?
·
· Score: 1
Links to Wikipedia Review are removed because Wikipedia Review isn't a legitimate review site; its only claim to notability is passing references in one or two news articles, and a post on Slashdot, IIRC. For comparison, its Alexa rank is 290,030. It looks different because it's Wikipedia editors removing an anti-Wikipedia site, but be honest- if Slashdot Review popped up tomorrow and got to the front page of Digg or Ars Technica, would it be worth a reference on Wikipedia? I can safely say not. I'm not aware of any case where established Wikipedia editors have tried to remove actual criticisms (the damning Penny Arcade article from about a year ago, for example); in fact, the article even mentions Andrew Orlowski, a contributor for The Register who must derive half his income from writing anti-Wikipedia articles that are often no more than FUD and random insults ("He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb.")
An altogether separate issue is that Wikipedia Review and its contributors have been some very vile trolls (including, notably, a self-proclaimed misogynist who has sent disturbing messages to female administrators).
For the record, I'm pretty sure that Yahoo has sold e-mail addresses.
Example: I got an e-mail address from them at an early age, and to protect my zip code (my parents were deathly afraid someone would find out my identity), I faked my zip code (90210, because it was the first one that came to mind). About a year later, and continuing to today, I get about 10-20 e-mails a day touting Beverly Hills real estate. I gave that fake zip to no other site.
As the administrator who unblocked the IP, I can clarify. The account was originally blocked with account creation disabled. Upon recognition that this was Qatar's IP, another administrator allowed account creation, and I removed the block altogether shortly thereafter.
I don't think that's what anyone's saying. I wish idiots like you would quit trying to make everything partisan- this seems to be a simple question of whether C-SPAN should have control of the footage. Personally, I'm open to more cameras and more footage, if Congress owns the footage. If C-SPAN won't have that, then I'm fine with the footage we have.
Applications are activities, documents are journals...hell, why don't we call the laptop a leg-sittin' typing machine? To call the renaming of anything a major GUI change is absurd.
You're going down a dangerous slope blaming the U.S. for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese had attacked us at Pearl Harbor, unprovoked, just 3 1/2 years ago, and to stop them from fighting the United States and its allies would have required a full-scale ground attack on Japan, which would have, under conservative estimates, resulted in casualties of 500,000 to 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers (not counting Japanese and allied forces). By launching the atomic bombs, Truman saved the lives of countless men. Is it sickening to attack civilians? Always. Was it morally reprehensible under the circumstances? I don't believe so.
As far as keeping nukes goes, I think there may still be a need to keep nuclear weaponry even today. With so many countries with nuclear weapons, it's important that there still be the worry of Mutually Assured Destruction. We won't use any of the nukes at this point because there's really no circumstances where using them would be helpful, and a counter-attack would be devastating. I don't think that nuclear weapons should spread across the world, no, but the technology's there, so there's really no way to remove all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. At this point, it's a matter of keeping every nation in check, including the United States.
One comment on grandparent's post...the reason that capitalization is that way is that otherwise, to [[link]] to a page like [[this]] would lead to a lowercase title, when the article might be located at an uppercase title. The decision was made to force capitalization for this reason. However, MediaWiki allows this default to be changed- Wiktionary uses mostly lowercase titles.
That's a technical issue more than anything. We'd have to ban usernames with most swear words/derogatory terms in every single language that we have Wikipedias in. Not to mention things like "vandal", "troll", "George W. Bush", etc.
IEEE links to OSI which links to ESR which links to the Halloween docs. Halloween starred Jamie Lee Curtis, who was in Queens Logic with Kevin Bacon. HA!
Like many other companies, they didn't worry about it until it became too mainstream to stop. It's like LEGO wanting people to call them "Lego bricks" instead of "Legos", or Kleenex using "Kleenex brand tissues"- it's not going to happen, and at some point they will lose their trademark rights because of it.
Incorrect. That's called "We can use it because of fair use, but in all likelihood, you can't use it, or at the very least, you should look into this."
This is wrong. Wikipedia is very strict on copyright laws. Copyrighted photos can sometimes be used under fair use principles, but their usage is frowned upon. Public domain/GFDL photos are ALWAYS preferred.
Even with crappy specs, it's honestly going to get a great number of parents buying the "affordable" one. That's who Nintendo's trying to aim at...honestly, most Nintendo games are aimed at younger kids anyway (Mario Party, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I'm concerned, it's not immoral to block the insidious ads that divert attention from the main content. As such, I use the hosts file to block particular ad domains that I'm bothered by. As far as I'm concerned, that's helping the website - by blocking the ads, I'm more likely to read the content in full, and possibly go there more often, perhaps even tell other people about it (and those people are a lot less likely to block ads at all). But I don't block non-intrusive ads (Google ads and other textual ads, as well as some flash ads), because they don't affect my viewing at all. Morally, I believe that it's wrong to punish a website that shows me ads that I will notice, but not be hypnotized by (spank the monkey, shoot Osama in the face, etc.), because the website is actively trying to find ways to make money without annoying its customers.
The problem with a-la-carte pricing is that it makes it impossible for new networks to get enough subscribers to start up. Think about it - how many of us would personally watch LOGO, the Gay/Lesbian Network? Some, but not enough for it to survive without charging an insane amount per subscriber. How about a network like the old TechTV, or even G4? Most of us would, but most consumers wouldn't. Even networks that would appeal to everyone would have a tough time gaining ground once it went into effect. Would you call in to purchase a new network? Not unless it had a show you really, really wanted. You can make an argument that it should be based on who wants each network, and that you shouldn't pay for networks you won't watch, but I'd argue that package programming keeps the price down for all networks.
Perhaps the best move is to have some Google Blog entries on the main page. If done tactfully, they could easily inform users of new updates without becoming as bloated as Yahoo has.
Another poster mentioned, and I'm not sure if it's true, that TPB had an uncensored image service that may have been the culprit. If that's true, and that service was hosting child porn, and TPB wasn't doing anything about it, then it might be an appropriate move.
I use it myself. It's wonder full. delete that. delete that. delete that. double the killer delete select all
I disagree. Remember, the assassination is just 10 years removed from the time when a United States Representative beat another Representative with a cane on the House floor. Over time, we tend to remember the good things and gloss over the bad.
Links to Wikipedia Review are removed because Wikipedia Review isn't a legitimate review site; its only claim to notability is passing references in one or two news articles, and a post on Slashdot, IIRC. For comparison, its Alexa rank is 290,030. It looks different because it's Wikipedia editors removing an anti-Wikipedia site, but be honest- if Slashdot Review popped up tomorrow and got to the front page of Digg or Ars Technica, would it be worth a reference on Wikipedia? I can safely say not. I'm not aware of any case where established Wikipedia editors have tried to remove actual criticisms (the damning Penny Arcade article from about a year ago, for example); in fact, the article even mentions Andrew Orlowski, a contributor for The Register who must derive half his income from writing anti-Wikipedia articles that are often no more than FUD and random insults ("He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb.")
An altogether separate issue is that Wikipedia Review and its contributors have been some very vile trolls (including, notably, a self-proclaimed misogynist who has sent disturbing messages to female administrators).
For the record, I'm pretty sure that Yahoo has sold e-mail addresses.
Example: I got an e-mail address from them at an early age, and to protect my zip code (my parents were deathly afraid someone would find out my identity), I faked my zip code (90210, because it was the first one that came to mind). About a year later, and continuing to today, I get about 10-20 e-mails a day touting Beverly Hills real estate. I gave that fake zip to no other site.
As the administrator who unblocked the IP, I can clarify. The account was originally blocked with account creation disabled. Upon recognition that this was Qatar's IP, another administrator allowed account creation, and I removed the block altogether shortly thereafter.
I don't think that's what anyone's saying. I wish idiots like you would quit trying to make everything partisan- this seems to be a simple question of whether C-SPAN should have control of the footage. Personally, I'm open to more cameras and more footage, if Congress owns the footage. If C-SPAN won't have that, then I'm fine with the footage we have.
Applications are activities, documents are journals...hell, why don't we call the laptop a leg-sittin' typing machine? To call the renaming of anything a major GUI change is absurd.
Kodos wants Honey BBQ Wings!
You're going down a dangerous slope blaming the U.S. for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese had attacked us at Pearl Harbor, unprovoked, just 3 1/2 years ago, and to stop them from fighting the United States and its allies would have required a full-scale ground attack on Japan, which would have, under conservative estimates, resulted in casualties of 500,000 to 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers (not counting Japanese and allied forces). By launching the atomic bombs, Truman saved the lives of countless men. Is it sickening to attack civilians? Always. Was it morally reprehensible under the circumstances? I don't believe so.
As far as keeping nukes goes, I think there may still be a need to keep nuclear weaponry even today. With so many countries with nuclear weapons, it's important that there still be the worry of Mutually Assured Destruction. We won't use any of the nukes at this point because there's really no circumstances where using them would be helpful, and a counter-attack would be devastating. I don't think that nuclear weapons should spread across the world, no, but the technology's there, so there's really no way to remove all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. At this point, it's a matter of keeping every nation in check, including the United States.
One comment on grandparent's post...the reason that capitalization is that way is that otherwise, to [[link]] to a page like [[this]] would lead to a lowercase title, when the article might be located at an uppercase title. The decision was made to force capitalization for this reason. However, MediaWiki allows this default to be changed- Wiktionary uses mostly lowercase titles.
That's a technical issue more than anything. We'd have to ban usernames with most swear words/derogatory terms in every single language that we have Wikipedias in. Not to mention things like "vandal", "troll", "George W. Bush", etc.
More importantly:
IEEE links to OSI which links to ESR which links to the Halloween docs. Halloween starred Jamie Lee Curtis, who was in Queens Logic with Kevin Bacon. HA!
But what happens when all cars have black boxes, and there's no way to avoid buying a new car with one in it?
Like many other companies, they didn't worry about it until it became too mainstream to stop. It's like LEGO wanting people to call them "Lego bricks" instead of "Legos", or Kleenex using "Kleenex brand tissues"- it's not going to happen, and at some point they will lose their trademark rights because of it.
"Walk the Dinosaur", a 1980's song.
Original lyrics:
Open the door, get on the floor
Everybody walk the dinosaur.
A crushed knucklebone in a drilling core,
Everybody find the dinosaur!
Incorrect. That's called "We can use it because of fair use, but in all likelihood, you can't use it, or at the very least, you should look into this."
This is wrong. Wikipedia is very strict on copyright laws. Copyrighted photos can sometimes be used under fair use principles, but their usage is frowned upon. Public domain/GFDL photos are ALWAYS preferred.
Even with crappy specs, it's honestly going to get a great number of parents buying the "affordable" one. That's who Nintendo's trying to aim at...honestly, most Nintendo games are aimed at younger kids anyway (Mario Party, etc.)
1. Steal underpants.
2. ???
3. PROFIT!
Oh, wait. Wrong GNOMEs.
Wikipedia's been doing a lot of good work for the last five years. It's nice to see the millionth article finally reached.
And to think that their original goal was 100,000 articles...