IMHO, the Beeb always seemed a bit dull. It was what you used at school, when you had to peck through dull basic programs under the watchful eye of teacher.
At home is where you had a ZX Spectrum, and where you had free reign and did the real inventive programming.
The Beeb was probably the better machine, but the speccy was where the real fun was.
Yeah, two points for you. First, who said I was an atheist?
Secondly, Clarke may well have accepted the wishes graciously. But I don't pretend to speak for him and the wishes weren't addressed to me, so I'm free to comment without seeming ungracious. And I suspect he would have thought the sentiment a tad ridiculous. In the same way if someone had said it was astrologically a good day to die. Or dying in March would ensure he would be take his place in the chariot of the god Mars.
Any fan of his would suspect the same. He was a noted atheist.
Bad articles do not make good articles less valuable, or even less trusted. Of course it does! If I go to Wikipedia and read something I know to be a heap of biased inaccurate waffle, then my trust in every other article that I don't know quite so much about goes down a notch. It's what you call reputation.
If information is valuable enough to be looked up, it will be valuable enough to correct. True, but it also works in the reverse. If it's looked up enough to be valuable, it's looked up enough for the clueless to mess up. Unfortunately some articles are more likely to attract bad editors than good editors, and the more obscure they are the more this imbalance is apparent.
Honestly, does it take that much more effort to tag something as "unreliable" as it does to delete them? No. And there are already a number of tags that indicate this already. But then someone has to re-visit and decide if it's since improved any, or got worse, or had its unreliable tag removed without justification. Repeatedly. That someone has to know a fair bit of background about the subject matter. By the time you've done all that you're almost as well editing the article anyway. And let's not forget about reputation. I'd far rather Wikipedia had less articles that were reliable than more articles all headed "unreliable".
Deleting is a way of saying; this article is crap and unlikely to improve without significant work that's simply not going to happen, removal is the cleanest solution. It's a way of recognising that good editors are a limited resource, where-as the capacity for people to create bad articles is near limitless.
The point of Wikipedia, unless I'm mistaken, is to consolidate that information. Information comes in many forms. Wikipedia is only interested in the verified facts. Part of consolidation is weeding out the garbage.
- use Firefox.
- use Adblock. Constantly update it. Mercilessly add all sites that push annoying, irrelevant ads onto your screen.
- regularly clear your cookies. Block any cookie forever from any website you don't immediately recognise.
- use NoScript. Honestly, you'll be amazed by the source of all the scripts that attempt to run on your computer. How many of them do you care about?
- lie on every stupid compulsory registration you encounter. If you have no immediate interest in entering a business arrangement with them, they often have no legitimate reason for demanding you answer these intrusive questions. Lie. Tell them you're a 80 year old widow from Vietnam (always good, they don't appear to be able to verify Zip/Post codes) with an interest in snowboards. That'll look good on their graphs. Tell the next website a completely different story.
The problem with that would be I have zero interest in professional wrestling, and very little interest in anime. I have neither the time nor inclination to learn enough about them and re-write them, never mind guard them against the constant tide of fan-cruft. I have this in common with most other Wikipedia editors. This was my whole point. If you have too many trashy articles, then no-one has the time to fix them. If Wikipedia has too many trashy articles then it devalues all other articles.
Deleting them takes far less effort, and most of them wouldn't be missed. If you want to read fan-cruft about WWE, then the internet isn't short of websites. But I'm not pretending that this is an easy solution. There are a lot of value-judgements involved. But I guess that's what professional editors do.
The bottom line is that people in general love conspiracy theories. They love the idea that someone out there, some where, is trying to suppress knowledge/liberty/happiness. That's what explains why life (and theirs in particular) isn't wonderful and perfect, and we're not all living together in harmony on the planet as god intended. It is, in short, the easy answer that makes a good 90 minute movie.
And it gets even better than that; people love being the ones in on the secret. Yup, the poor, ignorant masses may not realise that knowledge/liberty/happiness is being suppressed, but I, for one, do! Cos I'm smart, see?
So the idea that "big science" is suppressing development, that would otherwise open our eyes and improve life, fits perfectly with this mind set. Same as "big medicine" is lying to us about alternative treatments and "big government" is suppressing the truth about UFOs/9-11/Apollo/JFK/chem trails/you name it.
Exactly. Many of the worse pages on Wikipedia have been edited by a handful of people and haven't been even been glanced at by someone who knows what their doing (e.g. can spell) or aren't horribly biased. Fan articles are particularly bad, as they tend to be written by uncritical fanatics who are more interested in gushing about their chosen subject and conveying everything they know about it and their interpretation of things. Notability, accuracy, neutrality and references barely get a look in. You want bad articles? Try browsing some of the professional wrestling or anime articles. They'd make you weep.
Each and every one of those pages are the kind of dross that gives Wikipedia a bad name for being an amateur collection of random opinions. They are the noise that is in danger of drowning out the knowledge and there simply isn't the people to tidy them. Far better they were removed.
Yes, I realise the law hasn't changed any. But that isn't going to stop financial institutions trying to change people's perception of what is happening. As long as they can convince their customers that the problem is theirs, rather than the banks, they can offload responsibility.
Give it a couple of years Give it a couple of years and my point will have been proven. Some bands will still be releasing their music "pay what you want" on the net, no-one will be talking about it as if it's a big deal, very few will be making big bucks at it.
Oh and giving your music away for free is nothing new, new bands do it all the time Umm.. isn't that my whole point? You did read what I wrote??
Oh and as for it getting stale, tell the porn industry when they launch yet another starlet. By stale I mean, isn't news any more. No more free publicity, common place, big deal, join the other thousand who launched today.
It used to be that if a bank lost money because someone defrauded them by pretending to be a customer of theirs it was their problem. But now, with the wonderful new term "identity theft", it's your identity that's been stolen and therefore your money. You may appear to still have your identity, and they may appear to have lost their money, but that's just looking at it too simplistically.
So remember; fraud = their money, identity theft = your money. Change the way you describe the crime and magically you change who's the victim. Isn't that clever?
Every headline about a band making millions in a matter of days by distributing their music online, is going to attract the attention of the other musicians. Eventually, they will catch on. Unfortunately what works for Radiohead and NIN isn't necessarily going to work for other musicians.
For a start, they're not going to get tons of free publicity. Plenty of musicians already release their music for free, without expecting any payment. They don't get articles in slashdot. If lots of other musicians "catch on" they'll find the whole "band releases album on net" story is long past stale, no-one cares, and hundreds, never mind millions, aren't going to be made.
No because once you talk about "intent" you're into thought crimes. Guess that makes the difference between manslaughter and murder "thought crime". Intent is an important part of law and morality.
As for "Hitmen Yellow Pages" - you're again conflating two issues here - one is a crime, the other is copyright violation. Yeah, you're splitting hairs with legal definitions again. I'm talking about what is right or wrong. Both a wrong.
A black suit, IMO, shows that a person put less thought into getting dressed than a person who wears sock/sandals and a big Hawaiian shirt. At least those things exhibit character. Yes, but what character? Maybe their character is obnoxious and needs neutralised in something soulless and bland.
Exactly. How many posts on slashdot are they pointing out that P2P != Piracy, yet here we have a article intro that confuses the two, simply cos it helps to make their point.
There's a difference between knowing and telling someone about how and where to do something bad (and I'm assuming here that we are agreed that copyright infringement is bad), and creating an entire catalogue of them that generates revenue for you. It's all to do with the intent. The intent of Pirate Bay is that people should use the links, and their intent is that they will aid copyright infringement, and their intent is that they should earn money from this.
How do you think the publication of a book called "Hitmen Yellow Pages" would be regarded? There is a difference here with, say, a newspaper report identifying a murderer and how they murdered someone. Sure, listing a phone number is not illegal as such. But if it is your intent that the person should use that phone number in the course of commiting a crime, then there are laws about aiding and abetting for a reason.
Here the company actually used the photograph. We're agreed on that. They "used" the photograph to help generate revenue for their company. And Pirate Bay "use" music files to help generate profit for theirs. Just because they're careful to avoid dirtying their hands with the actual bits and bytes doesn't mean they're innocent of this. Legally you can argue all day, but morally they are no different.
You can't accuse people of having double standards based on your viewpoint! I can when I'm asking them to explain why they believe it to relevant. Which, strangely enough, no-one can. All that's been provided is parroting about why it doesn't break the law, so that's ok then. I'm saying forget about the law. If I wanted a lecture on what the law says I wouldn't be asking it here, I'd ask lawyers. The law can get it wrong, as slashdot is very fond of pointing out. What I'm asking is; is it right?
Why is it ok for Pirate Bay (and supporters) to hide behind a legal distinction between hosting music files provided for copyright infringement, and directing access to music files provided for copyright infringement? Particularly when they are commercially profiting from it? And why is this morally different from infringing copyright on a photograph in order to advertise your business?
Both companies are/were deliberately using copyright infringement as an indirect means of putting money in their pockets. Any further distinctions between them is double standards and hand-waving to distract from the facts.
In fact, you're as guilty of this as they are - you've just told the world they can download mp3s at the pirate bay! Well that's about as logical as deciding that saying "Joe Bloggs is a criminal" is the same as saying "Joe Bloggs, please lend me a hand in conducting this criminal act". Makes every judge as guilty as those who solicit criminal help.
All the pirate bay does is tell them other IP addresses through a bittorrent tracker. And collect advertising money in the process.
Otherwise they're doing something about as illegal as me telling you that 45th St is the place to get bootleg CDs in town. I thought I'd made it clear. Splitting hairs about whether it's legal or not is irrelevant. I'm talking about whether it's right. Whether they technically are breaking the law is something I'm asking you to put aside for the moment. Why is it good that this one company are punished from profiting from breach of copyright on a photograph, but fine for Pirate Bay to profit from breach of copyright on music?
It sounds to me that the researchers here got way too involved with gameplay "dying", simply because it's called "dying". Would they be attempting draw the same conclusions if it was called "5 minute time-out", which is what it has more in common with real life?
"Dying" in an online game is nothing like dying. You are not faced with any finality. It is not the ultimate sacrifice and not the grim reaper that comes to us all, without option. It's just part of your participation in the game, a small set-back, a respite from the action.
So any comparison with the zen of after-life experience is the biggest load of hooey you're likely to encounter this week.
Does the Pirate Bay have mp3s on their servers you can download? That's irrelevant. They are using a process of copyright infringement as a means of earning revenue. Whether they host the files or not is just a legal distinction, not a question of whether it's right.
It's often the case in slashdot where posters claim the higher moral ground, despite what the law may say. Hence the regular outrage at patent trolls, internet censorship, government snooping, or other muddle-headed legal decisions involving technology. Well here's a good example. Technically they may not be hosting the files, and technically they may not be infringing copyright. But they most 100% certainly are facilitating it, and earning healthy profits by doing so.
So, I ask again, how is this morally any different (if not worse) than copyright infringement of an image in an advert? Or are we really working to dual standards here?
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, the Beeb always seemed a bit dull. It was what you used at school, when you had to peck through dull basic programs under the watchful eye of teacher.
At home is where you had a ZX Spectrum, and where you had free reign and did the real inventive programming.
The Beeb was probably the better machine, but the speccy was where the real fun was.
Yeah, two points for you. First, who said I was an atheist?
Secondly, Clarke may well have accepted the wishes graciously. But I don't pretend to speak for him and the wishes weren't addressed to me, so I'm free to comment without seeming ungracious. And I suspect he would have thought the sentiment a tad ridiculous. In the same way if someone had said it was astrologically a good day to die. Or dying in March would ensure he would be take his place in the chariot of the god Mars.
Any fan of his would suspect the same. He was a noted atheist.
Excellent, I've always lacked pomp. Now it appears I have a surplus of it.
He was a imaginative and intelligent man. He contributed a lot. He's gone, but he's not going anywhere.
Just what exactly are you linking to there? Cos I don't see any reference anywhere about box office takings being affected by camcorder piracy.
If you're going to post made-up bullshit, you should at least try finding websites with the same bullshit to reference.
Deleting is a way of saying; this article is crap and unlikely to improve without significant work that's simply not going to happen, removal is the cleanest solution. It's a way of recognising that good editors are a limited resource, where-as the capacity for people to create bad articles is near limitless.
Well in the mean time; do this;
- use Firefox.
- use Adblock. Constantly update it. Mercilessly add all sites that push annoying, irrelevant ads onto your screen.
- regularly clear your cookies. Block any cookie forever from any website you don't immediately recognise.
- use NoScript. Honestly, you'll be amazed by the source of all the scripts that attempt to run on your computer. How many of them do you care about?
- lie on every stupid compulsory registration you encounter. If you have no immediate interest in entering a business arrangement with them, they often have no legitimate reason for demanding you answer these intrusive questions. Lie. Tell them you're a 80 year old widow from Vietnam (always good, they don't appear to be able to verify Zip/Post codes) with an interest in snowboards. That'll look good on their graphs. Tell the next website a completely different story.
The problem with that would be I have zero interest in professional wrestling, and very little interest in anime. I have neither the time nor inclination to learn enough about them and re-write them, never mind guard them against the constant tide of fan-cruft. I have this in common with most other Wikipedia editors. This was my whole point. If you have too many trashy articles, then no-one has the time to fix them. If Wikipedia has too many trashy articles then it devalues all other articles.
Deleting them takes far less effort, and most of them wouldn't be missed. If you want to read fan-cruft about WWE, then the internet isn't short of websites. But I'm not pretending that this is an easy solution. There are a lot of value-judgements involved. But I guess that's what professional editors do.
"who knows what they're doing (e.g. can spell)"
(Just saying it before anyone else does.)
The bottom line is that people in general love conspiracy theories. They love the idea that someone out there, some where, is trying to suppress knowledge/liberty/happiness. That's what explains why life (and theirs in particular) isn't wonderful and perfect, and we're not all living together in harmony on the planet as god intended. It is, in short, the easy answer that makes a good 90 minute movie.
And it gets even better than that; people love being the ones in on the secret. Yup, the poor, ignorant masses may not realise that knowledge/liberty/happiness is being suppressed, but I, for one, do! Cos I'm smart, see?
So the idea that "big science" is suppressing development, that would otherwise open our eyes and improve life, fits perfectly with this mind set. Same as "big medicine" is lying to us about alternative treatments and "big government" is suppressing the truth about UFOs/9-11/Apollo/JFK/chem trails/you name it.
Exactly. Many of the worse pages on Wikipedia have been edited by a handful of people and haven't been even been glanced at by someone who knows what their doing (e.g. can spell) or aren't horribly biased. Fan articles are particularly bad, as they tend to be written by uncritical fanatics who are more interested in gushing about their chosen subject and conveying everything they know about it and their interpretation of things. Notability, accuracy, neutrality and references barely get a look in. You want bad articles? Try browsing some of the professional wrestling or anime articles. They'd make you weep.
Each and every one of those pages are the kind of dross that gives Wikipedia a bad name for being an amateur collection of random opinions. They are the noise that is in danger of drowning out the knowledge and there simply isn't the people to tidy them. Far better they were removed.
It'll remove that cunning "click here to submit US Airforce secrets" link from his homepage.
Yes, I realise the law hasn't changed any. But that isn't going to stop financial institutions trying to change people's perception of what is happening. As long as they can convince their customers that the problem is theirs, rather than the banks, they can offload responsibility.
You've missed the subtle twist in the process.
It used to be that if a bank lost money because someone defrauded them by pretending to be a customer of theirs it was their problem. But now, with the wonderful new term "identity theft", it's your identity that's been stolen and therefore your money. You may appear to still have your identity, and they may appear to have lost their money, but that's just looking at it too simplistically.
So remember; fraud = their money, identity theft = your money. Change the way you describe the crime and magically you change who's the victim. Isn't that clever?
For a start, they're not going to get tons of free publicity. Plenty of musicians already release their music for free, without expecting any payment. They don't get articles in slashdot. If lots of other musicians "catch on" they'll find the whole "band releases album on net" story is long past stale, no-one cares, and hundreds, never mind millions, aren't going to be made.
Exactly. How many posts on slashdot are they pointing out that P2P != Piracy, yet here we have a article intro that confuses the two, simply cos it helps to make their point.
How do you think the publication of a book called "Hitmen Yellow Pages" would be regarded? There is a difference here with, say, a newspaper report identifying a murderer and how they murdered someone. Sure, listing a phone number is not illegal as such. But if it is your intent that the person should use that phone number in the course of commiting a crime, then there are laws about aiding and abetting for a reason. Here the company actually used the photograph. We're agreed on that. They "used" the photograph to help generate revenue for their company. And Pirate Bay "use" music files to help generate profit for theirs. Just because they're careful to avoid dirtying their hands with the actual bits and bytes doesn't mean they're innocent of this. Legally you can argue all day, but morally they are no different.
Why is it ok for Pirate Bay (and supporters) to hide behind a legal distinction between hosting music files provided for copyright infringement, and directing access to music files provided for copyright infringement? Particularly when they are commercially profiting from it? And why is this morally different from infringing copyright on a photograph in order to advertise your business?
Both companies are/were deliberately using copyright infringement as an indirect means of putting money in their pockets. Any further distinctions between them is double standards and hand-waving to distract from the facts.
It sounds to me that the researchers here got way too involved with gameplay "dying", simply because it's called "dying". Would they be attempting draw the same conclusions if it was called "5 minute time-out", which is what it has more in common with real life?
"Dying" in an online game is nothing like dying. You are not faced with any finality. It is not the ultimate sacrifice and not the grim reaper that comes to us all, without option. It's just part of your participation in the game, a small set-back, a respite from the action.
So any comparison with the zen of after-life experience is the biggest load of hooey you're likely to encounter this week.
It's often the case in slashdot where posters claim the higher moral ground, despite what the law may say. Hence the regular outrage at patent trolls, internet censorship, government snooping, or other muddle-headed legal decisions involving technology. Well here's a good example. Technically they may not be hosting the files, and technically they may not be infringing copyright. But they most 100% certainly are facilitating it, and earning healthy profits by doing so.
So, I ask again, how is this morally any different (if not worse) than copyright infringement of an image in an advert? Or are we really working to dual standards here?