You're completely wrong. The patent system is totally busted, and it is having a huge impact now. It's preventing certain research in the medical field, denying hundreds of millions of people access to potentially life-saving drugs. It is pulling the plug on relatively expensive devices millions of people use(millions? or hundreds of thousands, forget the precise number), and it is forcing Microsoft into doing some godawful workarounds with their browser and will force tens of millions of website operators to use said workarounds for their multimedia laden sites.
You make these insulting claims about folks on/. while denying observable facts. Well fuck you too, buddy. That's some brilliant fucking logic, dipshit.
Just when ARE we supposed to start complaining? People are ALREADY dying because of our patent laws. That's about as nigh end of the world as things can even approach on this issue, ie. it can't get much worse.
I can only assume you have a large stake in patents, somehow. If that's the case, you are greedy, bottom feeding, worthless human waste. Now FOAD.
Certain people are afraid of Wikipedia, for many different reasons, all of which apply to the Internet at large. A lot of the criticism comes from shitbags who are competitors to Wikipedia in some sense.
Most of Wikipedia's critics are quite despisable, INSHO.
Wow, you really ARE a disengenous piece of shit. (Yes, highly inflammatory ad-hominem, so be it.) Some of the other responses already covered it, the OP used the term in an appropriate manner. You're really dense, but good at argumentation. +5, Assface.
I think the government should be placing toilet cams in all toilets, along with biometric sensors to know who is "dropping a bomb." This is, of course, for health reasons. Stool quality reflects a number of important health issues.
No, the only thing new today is that we have the ability to monitor a lot of "stuff," and we need to determine just how *much* privacy is an intrinsic human right. Complete lack of privacy is utter tyranny. Complete privacy is impossible.
That's a) offensive, to me, and even more so to anyone who's ever contributed to wikipedia, b) untrue. I have never contributed to Wikipedia. So, according to your logic, pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument is cause to call me a derogatory name. Way to go, asshole.
First of all, My take on this isn't so much that people want to control others. They want to maintain damage control.
Yes, damage control, by controlling other people.
but if I disagree with some whacked out wiki-fiddler my information (if there is any) could very easily be altered to harm my chances for success in the REAL world.
You still have the same recourse you've always had against slander and libel, file a lawsuit. It may be hard now, in this day and age where anyone can post anything, *anywhere* on the Internet(ie. NOT JUST WIKIPEDIA). But that's life. Deal with it.
Oh, but you'll claim that because it's on Wikipedia, it's more damaging. Bullshit. Unless you're famous, very, very few people will read the entry about you. The damage will be just as limited as if they posted it on, hmmm, say, Slashdot, or anywhere else on the Web.
I guess my point is, the complaints leveled against Wikipedia apply not to Wikipedia, specifically, but to the whole of the Internet. So, the logical conclusion, by the logic of those who would attempt to force Wikipedia to make changes, would be to forcefully censor the whole of the Internet, for "damage control."
Sparks are at least entertaining. The axe is gone, nothing left but the wooden handle. Right now, they're just smashing the handle to bits, wood chips flying into everyone's eyes, blinding everyone who bothers to look.
That argument is, essentially, that because all sources of information are unreliable to some degree or another, Wikipedia's unreliability is irrelevant to its value. This is only true if all sources of information are equally unreliable. Which, I hope you agree, is not the case.
You, and the original author, are totally wrong. Noone on the opposing side is saying you should be skeptical of everything to the same degree, but rather, you have to fucking figure out just how skeptical you should be of any given source.
It's like fucking preschool. Everyone needs someone to hold their fucking hand. Take some fucking responsibility, judge information for your self. As soon as you start trusting any source too much, that source has power over you. That DOES NOT MEAN that you can't trust some sources more than others. YOU have to be the judge of that, however.
Wikipedia is my second favorite online resource, just under Google. The veracity of any given page on Wikipedia is terribly easy to estimate, given all the outside sources linked to in the most thorough topics.
And now people are trying to use slander and legal tactics to damage them, a non-profit, free online resource, made up of volunteers. Humanity doesn't get any lower than that.
It's hilarious, or not; Wikipedia's critics are exactly what they claim to oppose, unaccountable slanderous bastards.
/rant
Sorry for the rant, people who are so bent on controlling other people just really piss me off.
Oo was originally a proprietary office suite, not open source. Before Sun bought it and opened it up, it was already huge. What it had going for it, though, was "portability" and the best Office(TM) filters available.
It is still hardly OSS, in that it's fucking huge and not everyone has the time or inclination to get involved. Judging all of OSS by this particular piece of software is, well, fucking ridiculous. And come to think of it, Office(TM) was in the past -- I don't know if it still is, haven't used anything more recent than Office 97, mostly because later versions don't work with our databases very well due to *new* bugs. BTW, I had no hand in building the Access(TM) frontends for this garbage in question, of course, it *is* up to me to fix it all... *sigh* -- an awfully buggy software suite.
I'm sorry, but OSS is way too diverse to paint it all with one brush like such assholes are wont to do. FOAD.
Well certainly, but that doesn't mean that citizens aren't potential customers. If MA switches to opendocument, and IBM's products are peachier than the alternatives(OOo and KOffice, Etc.), then citizens may indeed buy them. That's all I'm saying.
Demanding an open document standard will open up more competition, whereas sticking with MS ensures there is absolutely none. So really, it's in the interests of every other business besides MS to use an open standard. It's also coincidentally in the interest of the citizenry too.
Are you some kind of shill? I ask only because your style of writing, and your arguments, seem very familiar, and they overlook a lot of facts. For example, prior versions of MS Office formats have been reverse engineered already, it's keeping up, especially with patents thrown into the equation now, that's the problem, so reading archived materials shouldn't be(a problem, that is).
If you're not using MS Office you may find a lot of your secretarial staff are keen to leave
IBM could care less about citizens because they aren't the potential customers.
Why aren't citizens potential customers? I thought part of the push for open standards was so that citizens could read all the government documents without having to spend an assload of money on proprietary software available from only one company.
They see a threat from people breaking the laws that VOTERS SUPPORTED.
That is based on the absolutely false assumption that most voters have any clue at all about the laws in question, let alone their very existence.
Also, I find it to be quite ridiculous that you don't hold the RIAA and politicians responsible for their own actions, from political bribes to extortion.
And regarding the law, I think you're way off-base. You claim the RIAA is acting legally, therefore it's all the voters' faults. As ridiculous as that is to begin with -- corruption simply being impossible to prevent, and the political landscape having evolved to become how it is over a longer timespan than most of the voting public has even been alive, let alone eligible to vote -- the RIAA, in the opinion of several judges and lawyers, activist organizations, etc., may not be acting legally, violating laws designed to protect people from such extortion.
IMO, the political axe you are always grinding gets in the way of your objectivity.
That would be a great way to show support for her, (except I wouldn't toss eggs), and to raise public awareness. Print a bunch of fliers to hand out to people, make some signs, have some extra signs on hand to give to people in the area who decide to help, etc.
The media is already interested in this case, and if you can get 10, or even just 5 or so, friends to come along, you might be able to make a difference.
I'm not against copyright law, but this is all going way too far. The RIAA has to stop this business and take a different approach to encourage people to purchase their content.
I work for a company that has made money selling online ad space since 1995. We are indeed one of the first companies to actually make a profit at it, AFAIK. In 2001, after a brief period of net advertising being absolutely out of control, it all came crashing down, because there was just too goddamn many ads, and people tuned out. Just like what is happening with TV ad spots today, they become less effective when there's just too much of it.
So while ads are reasonably effective again right now, it'll crash again, because website owners are just cluttering their sites with too damn many of 'em.
The company I work for has learned, and is maintaining a reasonable number of ad spots on our site. Others would do well to do the same. But I guess that goes against the current trend of dangerously short sighted business practices.
Don't be a fucking idiot. Sure, it was known that smoking was harmful for a long time, but not until quite recently was it known just how harmful, or how addictive. The tobacco companies knew for much longer than the generl public, and not only conspired to hide that information, but all the major tobacco executives purjured themselves in front of Congress, claiming that they didn't believe that nicotine was addictive. All while intentionally making it *more* addictive.
Personal responsibility goes both ways. You can't sell poeple addictive poison while telling them that it's not addictive and not very harmful.
Well, he would get upset, especially if he did in fact have something to do with the Kennedy assassination. Apparently, though, the statements about him were false, according to the updated Wikipedia article.
What really concerns me, though, is comments like this, "...we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research -- but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."
I suppose elite folks like him would rather free speech be limited to the elite. And who is he calling "volunteer vandals?" Anyone who contributes or is associated with Wikipedia? I certainly hope not.
OTOH, honestly, I can see his point. It has become more difficult to defend oneself against libelous statements. However, there are still legal avenues of redress, and freedom of speech is far too important to hold common carriers liable for the actions of a few. Holding them liable would stifle all speech on the Internet and goes against the very nature of the supposed ideals of this country.
The tobacco companies had lied about the health effects and addictiveness of tobacco for a long time, all while adding chemicals to make the nicotine *more* addictive.
If you think that's acceptable, I've got some great products to sell you. They won't explode and kill you, I promise.
Don't be offended by things other people enjoy doing, as long as they aren't _forcing_ it on you. Prosecute offenders(eg. porn spammers). Pay attention to your own damn kids.
Anything more and you are stepping on other peoples' toes. Said people don't appreciate that any more than you appreciate receiving farm porn spam with images.
My point was that I really don't care how inflammatory my statements are. If it offends you, well, tough.
But I have to disagree with you on two counts; my statements are neither outrageous nor do they contain gross obscenity. IMO, many of my statements are mildly vulgar to quite vulgar, but quite short of grossly obscene. That is, however, a matter of opinion. IMO, you're a fucking prude. And a statement cannot be outrageous if it is true, or at least a significant percentage of the population perceive it to be true. I often find a lot of people to be in agreement with me, so I find it rather ridiculous that you would claim my statements to be outrageous.
But since you are personally attacking me, instead of arguing about the topic that was at hand, I'll shoot back. I have read a bunch of your comments, and I find them to be completely devoid of, well, any substance whatsoever. You make a bunch of silly one or two line comments that add absolutely nothing new to the discussion, or you make point by point comments that completely ignore the bigger picture. And your jokes are not funny.
I already addressed why I think CSI is more likely to mislead people on topics than a game such as GTA is. CSI is presented as being rooted in scientific fact. The reality, of course, is that it is, kinda, but the writers just don't understand the facts well enough to portray and present them accurately.
FWIW, I mostly agree with everything you said, except I *do* in fact think that people can distinguish entertainment from reality, as it is generally the case that they do with a pretty large degree of accuracy. Otherwise, people would believe that there were giant invisible monsters roaming around on tropical islands, scantily clad women with monstrously sized breasts and perfectly muscled men with much too small torsos and long legs running around saving the day, etc.
What confuses people is information that is presented as being accurate information, when in fact it is not. This comes from entertainment, celebrities, documentaries, other people, politicians, etc. A recent example from pop culture is the book, "The Davinci Code." Obviously the story is pure entertainment. The facts the story is based on, however, are presented as real. The author even discusses it in the back of the book. The author actually believed it all. His information, however, is almost entirely false. But that false information has continued to spread because of the book. People aren't believing mislead by the fictional story, they are being mislead by the false information, which has subsequently been spread by word of mouth, the news, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You make these insulting claims about folks on /. while denying observable facts. Well fuck you too, buddy. That's some brilliant fucking logic, dipshit.
Just when ARE we supposed to start complaining? People are ALREADY dying because of our patent laws. That's about as nigh end of the world as things can even approach on this issue, ie. it can't get much worse.
I can only assume you have a large stake in patents, somehow. If that's the case, you are greedy, bottom feeding, worthless human waste. Now FOAD.
Most of Wikipedia's critics are quite despisable, INSHO.
No, the only thing new today is that we have the ability to monitor a lot of "stuff," and we need to determine just how *much* privacy is an intrinsic human right. Complete lack of privacy is utter tyranny. Complete privacy is impossible.
Privacy is not a luxary, that's just idiotic.
That's a) offensive, to me, and even more so to anyone who's ever contributed to wikipedia, b) untrue. I have never contributed to Wikipedia. So, according to your logic, pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument is cause to call me a derogatory name. Way to go, asshole.
Yes, damage control, by controlling other people.
but if I disagree with some whacked out wiki-fiddler my information (if there is any) could very easily be altered to harm my chances for success in the REAL world.
You still have the same recourse you've always had against slander and libel, file a lawsuit. It may be hard now, in this day and age where anyone can post anything, *anywhere* on the Internet(ie. NOT JUST WIKIPEDIA). But that's life. Deal with it.
Oh, but you'll claim that because it's on Wikipedia, it's more damaging. Bullshit. Unless you're famous, very, very few people will read the entry about you. The damage will be just as limited as if they posted it on, hmmm, say, Slashdot, or anywhere else on the Web.
I guess my point is, the complaints leveled against Wikipedia apply not to Wikipedia, specifically, but to the whole of the Internet. So, the logical conclusion, by the logic of those who would attempt to force Wikipedia to make changes, would be to forcefully censor the whole of the Internet, for "damage control."
You, and the original author, are totally wrong. Noone on the opposing side is saying you should be skeptical of everything to the same degree, but rather, you have to fucking figure out just how skeptical you should be of any given source.
It's like fucking preschool. Everyone needs someone to hold their fucking hand. Take some fucking responsibility, judge information for your self. As soon as you start trusting any source too much, that source has power over you. That DOES NOT MEAN that you can't trust some sources more than others. YOU have to be the judge of that, however.
And now people are trying to use slander and legal tactics to damage them, a non-profit, free online resource, made up of volunteers. Humanity doesn't get any lower than that.
It's hilarious, or not; Wikipedia's critics are exactly what they claim to oppose, unaccountable slanderous bastards.
Sorry for the rant, people who are so bent on controlling other people just really piss me off.
It is still hardly OSS, in that it's fucking huge and not everyone has the time or inclination to get involved. Judging all of OSS by this particular piece of software is, well, fucking ridiculous. And come to think of it, Office(TM) was in the past -- I don't know if it still is, haven't used anything more recent than Office 97, mostly because later versions don't work with our databases very well due to *new* bugs. BTW, I had no hand in building the Access(TM) frontends for this garbage in question, of course, it *is* up to me to fix it all... *sigh* -- an awfully buggy software suite.
I'm sorry, but OSS is way too diverse to paint it all with one brush like such assholes are wont to do. FOAD.
Demanding an open document standard will open up more competition, whereas sticking with MS ensures there is absolutely none. So really, it's in the interests of every other business besides MS to use an open standard. It's also coincidentally in the interest of the citizenry too.
If you're not using MS Office you may find a lot of your secretarial staff are keen to leave
And the above seems rather preposterous.
Why aren't citizens potential customers? I thought part of the push for open standards was so that citizens could read all the government documents without having to spend an assload of money on proprietary software available from only one company.
But why is open source code even mentioned? I don't understand the connection. And the original article is vague and shitty.
That is based on the absolutely false assumption that most voters have any clue at all about the laws in question, let alone their very existence.
Also, I find it to be quite ridiculous that you don't hold the RIAA and politicians responsible for their own actions, from political bribes to extortion.
And regarding the law, I think you're way off-base. You claim the RIAA is acting legally, therefore it's all the voters' faults. As ridiculous as that is to begin with -- corruption simply being impossible to prevent, and the political landscape having evolved to become how it is over a longer timespan than most of the voting public has even been alive, let alone eligible to vote -- the RIAA, in the opinion of several judges and lawyers, activist organizations, etc., may not be acting legally, violating laws designed to protect people from such extortion.
IMO, the political axe you are always grinding gets in the way of your objectivity.
The media is already interested in this case, and if you can get 10, or even just 5 or so, friends to come along, you might be able to make a difference.
I'm not against copyright law, but this is all going way too far. The RIAA has to stop this business and take a different approach to encourage people to purchase their content.
So while ads are reasonably effective again right now, it'll crash again, because website owners are just cluttering their sites with too damn many of 'em.
The company I work for has learned, and is maintaining a reasonable number of ad spots on our site. Others would do well to do the same. But I guess that goes against the current trend of dangerously short sighted business practices.
Personal responsibility goes both ways. You can't sell poeple addictive poison while telling them that it's not addictive and not very harmful.
What really concerns me, though, is comments like this, "...we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research -- but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."
I suppose elite folks like him would rather free speech be limited to the elite. And who is he calling "volunteer vandals?" Anyone who contributes or is associated with Wikipedia? I certainly hope not.
OTOH, honestly, I can see his point. It has become more difficult to defend oneself against libelous statements. However, there are still legal avenues of redress, and freedom of speech is far too important to hold common carriers liable for the actions of a few. Holding them liable would stifle all speech on the Internet and goes against the very nature of the supposed ideals of this country.
If you think that's acceptable, I've got some great products to sell you. They won't explode and kill you, I promise.
Anything more and you are stepping on other peoples' toes. Said people don't appreciate that any more than you appreciate receiving farm porn spam with images.
My point was that I really don't care how inflammatory my statements are. If it offends you, well, tough.
But I have to disagree with you on two counts; my statements are neither outrageous nor do they contain gross obscenity. IMO, many of my statements are mildly vulgar to quite vulgar, but quite short of grossly obscene. That is, however, a matter of opinion. IMO, you're a fucking prude. And a statement cannot be outrageous if it is true, or at least a significant percentage of the population perceive it to be true. I often find a lot of people to be in agreement with me, so I find it rather ridiculous that you would claim my statements to be outrageous.
But since you are personally attacking me, instead of arguing about the topic that was at hand, I'll shoot back. I have read a bunch of your comments, and I find them to be completely devoid of, well, any substance whatsoever. You make a bunch of silly one or two line comments that add absolutely nothing new to the discussion, or you make point by point comments that completely ignore the bigger picture. And your jokes are not funny.
Ok, I admit, now I'm just trolling you.
Cheers.
FWIW, I mostly agree with everything you said, except I *do* in fact think that people can distinguish entertainment from reality, as it is generally the case that they do with a pretty large degree of accuracy. Otherwise, people would believe that there were giant invisible monsters roaming around on tropical islands, scantily clad women with monstrously sized breasts and perfectly muscled men with much too small torsos and long legs running around saving the day, etc.
What confuses people is information that is presented as being accurate information, when in fact it is not. This comes from entertainment, celebrities, documentaries, other people, politicians, etc. A recent example from pop culture is the book, "The Davinci Code." Obviously the story is pure entertainment. The facts the story is based on, however, are presented as real. The author even discusses it in the back of the book. The author actually believed it all. His information, however, is almost entirely false. But that false information has continued to spread because of the book. People aren't believing mislead by the fictional story, they are being mislead by the false information, which has subsequently been spread by word of mouth, the news, etc.