As long as the money is concentrated in very few hands, the price of labor basically becomes fiat of the wealthy. You, as a first world citizen, can't compete on price and survive.
As for self-promotion. Self-promotion was often the start of many good articles. Clean out the unreferenced material if it is a good article and move on.
No, no it wasn't. Pretty much 2 categories make up the majority. Illegal copy and paste from PR brochure, or some kid in high school writing about themselves or their friends.
As for vaguely inappropriate that's often the big problem. The assumption back then was that everything was appropriate unless there was a very good reason not to have it.
No, verifiability has pretty much always been a wikipedia thing. You claim it was different in 2006, but when I started in 2005, the rule that everything had to have a reliable source was quite established. Maybe one or two slashdotters predate that rule, which is from like 2003 or so.
Take away editorial privileges from anyone with more deletions/reversions than actual contributions. Done.
Simple. Elegant. Wrong. A huge percentage of edits on Wikipedia are vandalism. A huge percentage of new articles are ads. Getting rid of those is an important job.
I would also suggest the age-old technique of using known-quality data to audit the editors - Assemble a team of known-good content creators and have them contribute under a variety of pseudonyms. Instantly fire any editor that decides to measure his dick against that known-good content. Best of all, Jimbo doesn't even need to do that in secret - In fact, he shouldn't do it secretly... That way it puts all the editors on notice - Don't fuck with legit content if you want to keep your god-like powers.
Simple, elegant, batshit retarded. You're basically saying "appoint a council of perfect guardians of rightness". It's the most authoritarian, opposite of project-goal design possible.
You know who did that? Citizendium. They don't even fucking exist anymore.
Yes, I've noticed. It's just that everyone complains, and no one even begins to consider the set of systems that lead to that condition and acknowledge that such difficulty is near inevitable. They just want to present their clearly superior views on a subject, but don't want to work within the context of a collaborative system.
Not one person has proposed a solution, because such solutions are almost exclusively of the "elegant, simple and wrong" variety.
No, it doesn't count as a linux desktop, but it makes certain that linux will be a target platform for PC developers. It pleases me, becaues games were pretty much all that keep me on windows.
I think you'll find that they have. I haven't (substantially) edited wikipedia in years, but I remember constant "be nice to newbies", "don't hide behind arcane policies" and similar type reminders from the "powers that be." But you can't ban useful contributors because they might be annoying to new users. That's cutting your nose to spite your face.
Yes, because 4.3 million English language articles is a sure sign of the victory of "deletionists". Sorry you couldn't put yourself on wikipedia as "the smartest dude ever." I dare you to go to the delition log for today and tell me that more than 5% of them have the bearest hint of being related to an encyclopedia.
They are 50% copyright violations, 40% self-promotion, and maybe 5-6% vaguely inappropriate in a non-specific way.
To the extent to which the commercial scheme itself is trustworthy, and given that we know they aren't really, the frankenscheme gives you some redundant protection.
Blah blah blah, of course I understand cryptosystems. But the fact of the matter is, you shouldn't inherently trust that the system itself is secure. If party C can't figure out how a message was encoded, they can't exploit gaps in that encoding to extract your message. There's no ifs ands or buts about that.
The fact is that people with the will and money to crack RSA can, given just a public key and a ciphertext. You can talk about the theory of interception all day, but the practice is all that matters.
But more seriously, if you develop your own crypto system, and only share it with the people who are decoding it, it turns out to be rather hard to break. Applying a substitution cipher followed by a matrix encryption, then stick that into any old commercial encryption, no one is going to have an easy time with it.
Slashdot Mirror
But productivity isn't the same as outright replacement. It's not far to imagine a profitable business with zero employees in the near future.
Except the part about a section of the world where the already moneyed elites don't control everything at the end. That's all fantasy.
That glimmer of hope you provide is assuming money cannot be used to directly displace labor. It can. Or at least will.
"Yes, how dare you litter, that totally justifies me beating you to an inch of your life"
Sociopath detected.
As long as the money is concentrated in very few hands, the price of labor basically becomes fiat of the wealthy. You, as a first world citizen, can't compete on price and survive.
Then you're relying on just one byte to never be changed by memory corruption forever.
if(false && false && false)
for(Missile missile: missles)
missile.launch()
As for self-promotion. Self-promotion was often the start of many good articles. Clean out the unreferenced material if it is a good article and move on.
No, no it wasn't. Pretty much 2 categories make up the majority. Illegal copy and paste from PR brochure, or some kid in high school writing about themselves or their friends.
As for vaguely inappropriate that's often the big problem. The assumption back then was that everything was appropriate unless there was a very good reason not to have it.
No, verifiability has pretty much always been a wikipedia thing. You claim it was different in 2006, but when I started in 2005, the rule that everything had to have a reliable source was quite established. Maybe one or two slashdotters predate that rule, which is from like 2003 or so.
Take away editorial privileges from anyone with more deletions/reversions than actual contributions. Done.
Simple. Elegant. Wrong. A huge percentage of edits on Wikipedia are vandalism. A huge percentage of new articles are ads. Getting rid of those is an important job.
I would also suggest the age-old technique of using known-quality data to audit the editors - Assemble a team of known-good content creators and have them contribute under a variety of pseudonyms. Instantly fire any editor that decides to measure his dick against that known-good content. Best of all, Jimbo doesn't even need to do that in secret - In fact, he shouldn't do it secretly... That way it puts all the editors on notice - Don't fuck with legit content if you want to keep your god-like powers.
Simple, elegant, batshit retarded. You're basically saying "appoint a council of perfect guardians of rightness". It's the most authoritarian, opposite of project-goal design possible.
You know who did that? Citizendium. They don't even fucking exist anymore.
What do you think the "top down" approach can do? Arbitrarily ban users for reverting unsubstantiated changes and arguing about it on the talk page?
Yes, I've noticed. It's just that everyone complains, and no one even begins to consider the set of systems that lead to that condition and acknowledge that such difficulty is near inevitable. They just want to present their clearly superior views on a subject, but don't want to work within the context of a collaborative system.
Not one person has proposed a solution, because such solutions are almost exclusively of the "elegant, simple and wrong" variety.
No, it doesn't count as a linux desktop, but it makes certain that linux will be a target platform for PC developers. It pleases me, becaues games were pretty much all that keep me on windows.
Yep you never see people get modded down and having their opinion suppressed for posting the same tiresome thing over and over.
I think you'll find that they have. I haven't (substantially) edited wikipedia in years, but I remember constant "be nice to newbies", "don't hide behind arcane policies" and similar type reminders from the "powers that be." But you can't ban useful contributors because they might be annoying to new users. That's cutting your nose to spite your face.
Yes, because 4.3 million English language articles is a sure sign of the victory of "deletionists". Sorry you couldn't put yourself on wikipedia as "the smartest dude ever." I dare you to go to the delition log for today and tell me that more than 5% of them have the bearest hint of being related to an encyclopedia.
They are 50% copyright violations, 40% self-promotion, and maybe 5-6% vaguely inappropriate in a non-specific way.
And yet you post on slashdot.
P@ssword1234 worked for me.
To the extent to which the commercial scheme itself is trustworthy, and given that we know they aren't really, the frankenscheme gives you some redundant protection.
Well, at least not the reverse mortgage ads, anyways. Who'd want to reverse mortgage a cardboard box?
Or engage in violence. Internet access shouldn't be a suicide pact.
Your passphrases wouldn't be enough without a meaningful understanding of the encryption used, which was my original point.
Sure, but why would they know to look for my code?
If you want to use your own cipher, fine. Use it. Then encrypt the result with AES.
Did you not read my post? I said exactly that. Last step: "then stick that into any old commercial encryption"
I mean, "How dare I not do that thing I did."
Blah blah blah, of course I understand cryptosystems. But the fact of the matter is, you shouldn't inherently trust that the system itself is secure. If party C can't figure out how a message was encoded, they can't exploit gaps in that encoding to extract your message. There's no ifs ands or buts about that.
The fact is that people with the will and money to crack RSA can, given just a public key and a ciphertext. You can talk about the theory of interception all day, but the practice is all that matters.
Well, you can always just trust the computer. The computer is your friend.
But more seriously, if you develop your own crypto system, and only share it with the people who are decoding it, it turns out to be rather hard to break. Applying a substitution cipher followed by a matrix encryption, then stick that into any old commercial encryption, no one is going to have an easy time with it.