I've considered that perspective, but the problem with alledging that intellectual property doesn't exist because it's abstract is flawed. The notion of property in the first place is abstract. You have a chair. I move it to my house and start sitting in it. Only abstract rules implemented by a sensible society say that that chair is yours. Those rules exist because, presumably, you did the work to earn that chair, either by making it trading something you did make for it. For many things, the initial creation of a copyrighted material is no different. A "true free market" is an impossible ideal due to a massive number of real world flaws: human mortality, shared environment, uninformed purchasers, psychological manipulation, and a host of other problems. I get where your opinion comes from, but free market is a powerful simplified model, not a holy grail of human capacity.
Their argument is based off a strictly capitalist view. If you consider the notion that there is no way to claim your work as your own once it is under the GPL and generate a profit directly from it, in this world view, it's a waste. They see GPL as a trap where once entered, there is no escape.
This view is flawed because it assumes there is no such thing as altruism, and that shared benefit from availability can't outweigh the potential benefit of carefully planned and limited sharing. This kind of idea comes from Economists who take the tragedy of the commons and the failures of universal communism to ridiculous extremes, making rules out of specific observations. Society is created from compromises and sharing, and open source is about developing a healthy society amongst developers.
That said, I do personally like to be able to release closed source versions of things, and allow others to do the same. The BSD and Eclipse licenses appeal to me more than the GPL.
Turing machine? Long magnetic tape with simple instruction set and finite alphabet? Don't we essentially have those for all intents and purposes? Turing did more theoretical work with computers than just AI.
Not exactly. Libel is published. Slander is transitory. If I were to go on a broadcast radio and say "JimDaGeek injects babies with ground pepper" that would be libel as it is published and presented to the world at large. If I were to send an instant message to someone I know with the same content, it would likely be slander. I'm not a lawyer, though.
this is the way wikipedia does things. Proofs should not be included because the editor understands them to be true, they should be included because published sources say it's a solid proof of the idea. Young articles don't need this as much as mature ones, and whole articles about a given proof would have to meet notability standards. Realistically, there should be no debate at all because the rules for this are already defined.
Proofs you wrote yourself are original research and have no business in an encyclopedia.
Many many many retail establishments prohibit you from making credit card purchases under $5 because they actually lose money on the transaction thanks to fees. Nintendo does the exact same thing with Wii Points, except you can't purchase those through your console, which allows a greater freedom for input when purchasing online, though I'm sure there's a minimum. The alternative is to raise prices, or using a horrifying shopping-cart type system which users would abhor.
I wanted to mod you up, and I could have, but this is absolutely the most correct statement ever.
The fact that there is Baldur's gate music playing right now is a testament to that. Also not on the list among music I've never heard anyone deny was incredible: Gerudo valley from Ocarina of Time, Tetris "A" music, and, oddly enough, "mute city" from the f-zero series. But baldur's gate across the board sweeps incredible sound tracks.
You're still missing the fundamental concept. All the carbon that comprises a forest has only 1 major source: conception of atmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis. There's no other way for the carbon that would be released by burning it to be present. Called the "conservation of matter" in chemistry. It's only breakable if one steps beyond the bound of conventional chemistry
Yes it freaking does. No known living creature performs fission or fusion. Therefore any carbon released has to COME FROM somewhere. even burnt down, you've only obtained carbon neutrality against barren land.
Plants releasing CO2? That defies basic biology. The albedo argument is legitimate, but there's just no reasonable way for the carbon one to be so.
Where are these trees getting the carbon they're binding and releasing? Soil has an incredibly low carbon concentration.
Actually, the netflix settup uses fewer copies of movies, because each individual shipping location covers a larger population than a given brick and mortar blockbuster. Basically, the statistics of it say they need fewer padding copies to cover the (unexpected) surges in demand. This means that even though the same total amount of renting happens, the movie studios see fewer dollars as a result.
I know my statement appeared as a general hatred of the MPAA, without much forethought, but they do lose money with netflix compared to brick and mortar.
This whole argument depends on netflix and blockbuster both having sensible purchasing policies with demand analysis. I don't know that.
1. Pop culture trash: this doesn't refer to all articles regarding popular culture, but rather just a great many. It usually starts out as(or is quickly whipped into shape by an experienced editor as) a small blurb summarizing the cultural relevance and origins of some item. Over time rampant speculation, positive description, and dubious links filter into it. These get these way because the people who care about and watch the article are not people interested in the academic information involved, but rather people who just like to see more of it. I've fixed up articles like this only to have them return to idiocy in a matter of 3-4 months when I checked up later. Examples ALMOST any article fitting description: "list of characters from {video game/tv show}" 2. Seriously contentious items: These tend to be the best articles on wikipedia because every addition is scrutinized from 30 different perspectives, questionable items are well referenced because someone disagreeing will remove it otherwise, and things tend to be well scrutinized. Good examples: "evolution" and "god". 3. relatively obscure item of actual academic interest: article usually started by someone with a casual interest. Rare(sometimes as rarely as every few months), but consistent, non-vandalized additions adding a sentence or two about the subject and the occasional restructuring of the whole article in accordance with what had been added. Usually one or two guardian users who care deeply about the subject and watch the article for extreme alterations. These kinds of articles improve slowly and never reach the point of incredible quality.
That's just my observation and theorizing on the subject. I could see all sorts of reasons people would disagree with my assessment.
Re:I partly blame the "validators"
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here's the problem... If it cannot be found by google and you(the original creator of the article) do not give print references that can be verified by other means... there's no evidence that what you're saying is not made up. Sure, longtime wikipedia editors are not trusting, but dealing with the number of advertisement and vanity articles(such as people who write articles about a "comic strip" they "published" in a high school newspaper for 2 months. You can't just take some anonymous person on the internet's word for things or else some of the other major objections with wikipedia(bad fact checking, etc) will be borne out.
Get some ISBNs and try a lexisnexus search for the comic. Learn to use wikipedia's citation system before creating your first article. This is the advice I give to everyone who gets their pet topic article on wikipedia deleted. Try it. It works.
Slashdot Mirror
No! Don't you see, if they're going to take market share from microsoft, they need features comparable to vista. It's all part of the plan.
Well, unless you're a square...
Who noticed the summary is discussing Space shuttle columbia in the present tense? This seems pretty tactless
Like the error of forgetting to click "Post Anonymously" when making a post agreeing with yourself.
So much for reading slashdot from work. It was nice knowing you guys.
I persist it is. Their notion of capital just extends further than yours.
I've considered that perspective, but the problem with alledging that intellectual property doesn't exist because it's abstract is flawed. The notion of property in the first place is abstract. You have a chair. I move it to my house and start sitting in it. Only abstract rules implemented by a sensible society say that that chair is yours. Those rules exist because, presumably, you did the work to earn that chair, either by making it trading something you did make for it. For many things, the initial creation of a copyrighted material is no different. A "true free market" is an impossible ideal due to a massive number of real world flaws: human mortality, shared environment, uninformed purchasers, psychological manipulation, and a host of other problems. I get where your opinion comes from, but free market is a powerful simplified model, not a holy grail of human capacity.
Their argument is based off a strictly capitalist view. If you consider the notion that there is no way to claim your work as your own once it is under the GPL and generate a profit directly from it, in this world view, it's a waste. They see GPL as a trap where once entered, there is no escape.
This view is flawed because it assumes there is no such thing as altruism, and that shared benefit from availability can't outweigh the potential benefit of carefully planned and limited sharing. This kind of idea comes from Economists who take the tragedy of the commons and the failures of universal communism to ridiculous extremes, making rules out of specific observations. Society is created from compromises and sharing, and open source is about developing a healthy society amongst developers.
That said, I do personally like to be able to release closed source versions of things, and allow others to do the same. The BSD and Eclipse licenses appeal to me more than the GPL.
It gets confusing because they all pretend to be medics.
This means Vista is still in development development development development?
Wow, that sounds exactly like the behavior of the standard issue coffee shop employee.
Turing machine? Long magnetic tape with simple instruction set and finite alphabet? Don't we essentially have those for all intents and purposes? Turing did more theoretical work with computers than just AI.
Browsing, on the other hand, and using summaries to gather information, that you can do. Oh... wait... "pdf", you're right, no one will read it.
Not exactly. Libel is published. Slander is transitory. If I were to go on a broadcast radio and say "JimDaGeek injects babies with ground pepper" that would be libel as it is published and presented to the world at large. If I were to send an instant message to someone I know with the same content, it would likely be slander. I'm not a lawyer, though.
this is the way wikipedia does things. Proofs should not be included because the editor understands them to be true, they should be included because published sources say it's a solid proof of the idea. Young articles don't need this as much as mature ones, and whole articles about a given proof would have to meet notability standards. Realistically, there should be no debate at all because the rules for this are already defined. Proofs you wrote yourself are original research and have no business in an encyclopedia.
Many many many retail establishments prohibit you from making credit card purchases under $5 because they actually lose money on the transaction thanks to fees. Nintendo does the exact same thing with Wii Points, except you can't purchase those through your console, which allows a greater freedom for input when purchasing online, though I'm sure there's a minimum. The alternative is to raise prices, or using a horrifying shopping-cart type system which users would abhor.
Wait till they get to the year of the wikipedia. The whole year will be blocked.
I wanted to mod you up, and I could have, but this is absolutely the most correct statement ever. The fact that there is Baldur's gate music playing right now is a testament to that. Also not on the list among music I've never heard anyone deny was incredible: Gerudo valley from Ocarina of Time, Tetris "A" music, and, oddly enough, "mute city" from the f-zero series. But baldur's gate across the board sweeps incredible sound tracks.
You're still missing the fundamental concept. All the carbon that comprises a forest has only 1 major source: conception of atmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis. There's no other way for the carbon that would be released by burning it to be present. Called the "conservation of matter" in chemistry. It's only breakable if one steps beyond the bound of conventional chemistry
Yes it freaking does. No known living creature performs fission or fusion. Therefore any carbon released has to COME FROM somewhere. even burnt down, you've only obtained carbon neutrality against barren land.
Plants releasing CO2? That defies basic biology. The albedo argument is legitimate, but there's just no reasonable way for the carbon one to be so.
Where are these trees getting the carbon they're binding and releasing? Soil has an incredibly low carbon concentration.
Actually, the netflix settup uses fewer copies of movies, because each individual shipping location covers a larger population than a given brick and mortar blockbuster. Basically, the statistics of it say they need fewer padding copies to cover the (unexpected) surges in demand. This means that even though the same total amount of renting happens, the movie studios see fewer dollars as a result.
I know my statement appeared as a general hatred of the MPAA, without much forethought, but they do lose money with netflix compared to brick and mortar.
This whole argument depends on netflix and blockbuster both having sensible purchasing policies with demand analysis. I don't know that.
The MPAA will blame Blockbuster's losses as due to piracy.
I've found this varies greatly.
I've seen 3 main pathways.
1. Pop culture trash: this doesn't refer to all articles regarding popular culture, but rather just a great many. It usually starts out as(or is quickly whipped into shape by an experienced editor as) a small blurb summarizing the cultural relevance and origins of some item. Over time rampant speculation, positive description, and dubious links filter into it. These get these way because the people who care about and watch the article are not people interested in the academic information involved, but rather people who just like to see more of it. I've fixed up articles like this only to have them return to idiocy in a matter of 3-4 months when I checked up later. Examples ALMOST any article fitting description: "list of characters from {video game/tv show}"
2. Seriously contentious items: These tend to be the best articles on wikipedia because every addition is scrutinized from 30 different perspectives, questionable items are well referenced because someone disagreeing will remove it otherwise, and things tend to be well scrutinized. Good examples: "evolution" and "god".
3. relatively obscure item of actual academic interest: article usually started by someone with a casual interest. Rare(sometimes as rarely as every few months), but consistent, non-vandalized additions adding a sentence or two about the subject and the occasional restructuring of the whole article in accordance with what had been added. Usually one or two guardian users who care deeply about the subject and watch the article for extreme alterations. These kinds of articles improve slowly and never reach the point of incredible quality.
That's just my observation and theorizing on the subject. I could see all sorts of reasons people would disagree with my assessment.
Here's the problem... If it cannot be found by google and you(the original creator of the article) do not give print references that can be verified by other means... there's no evidence that what you're saying is not made up. Sure, longtime wikipedia editors are not trusting, but dealing with the number of advertisement and vanity articles(such as people who write articles about a "comic strip" they "published" in a high school newspaper for 2 months. You can't just take some anonymous person on the internet's word for things or else some of the other major objections with wikipedia(bad fact checking, etc) will be borne out. Get some ISBNs and try a lexisnexus search for the comic. Learn to use wikipedia's citation system before creating your first article. This is the advice I give to everyone who gets their pet topic article on wikipedia deleted. Try it. It works.