I'm not an Apple zealot. I don't like a lot of the things they do, and their music business using DRM is very questionable. In the end, however, I think that they may have saved us a lot of pain by entering the market. They proved that people wanted, and would pay for digital music, and they provided a loophole in the DRM, so that customers can still do anything they need or want with the music in a legal way.
If Apple did not enter the music business, MS would probably just win, and we would all be stuck with most new music (and most old music) trapped in a DRM format that makes it illegal to copy between machines and formats. We would end up either breaking the law, or paying a tax on music to both MS, and the RIAA, again and again.
I might mention, I'm also not an open source zealot. OS is a great idea, and is a wonderful value proposition, that has really not been taken advantage of they way it should be. That said, I have no problem with closed source, and if someone wants to sell closed source software, I don't have any problems with that. Apple has been pretty good about adhering to standards and open formats, especially of late. It is entirely possible that this would not continue if they had a huge market share, like MS, but since that is never going to happen, I'm not really worried about it. People rant and scream about MS, because MS pisses on us again and again. Anyone in the computer business, or any business that relies upon computers has suffered at MS's hands. If not for their business practices, and illegal antics we'd probably be ten years ahead of where we are today. They have disemboweled the market. The only good thing that has come out of it, is that OS has evolved into such a powerful force because of the hardship it has had to endure. The strength of open source may eventually remake both the software and intellectual property industries.
Yeah, you could have a hybrid, half commercial entity, half computer application. Employees could install themselves on computers to save on food costs, and everyone could browse the company looking for porn. Just think of the possibilities!
Google web based desktop/app suite poses a far greater threat to Linux then the massively entrenched MS.
I don't think so. If Google goes after MS, Linux is its natural ally. Google will have to fight against MS's lock in and fighting on top of Windows is not easy when your opponent owns the code. It would take relatively little cash to keep their web-based desktop functional in Linux as well as Windows. This provides a way to move their customers away from the competition's playing field, and provides extra incentive for switchers (save $70 per machine in Windows licensing fees). Coupling that with improved security, near zero worms/viruses/trojans, and protection from MS's vendor lock-in, and you have a recipe that is very favorable for both Google and Linux. It makes for a very nice and gradual transition away, with several available bail-out points.
these guys are no more saints then any other business.
I, respectfully, disagree. Just because companies are generally amoral does not mean all of them behave in the same way. Some companies try to retain the trust of customers though honesty, and fair dealing. Some companies often used as examples here on Slashdot are Google and Apple. I think this is for a very good reason. Both companies are under the control of geeks who want to do "cool stuff." While responsible for making money and increasing shareholder value, it is obvious that the people in charge really want to make cool things, and the money making is not all there is to it. Executives who run other companies, like say, Dell or Walmart only seem to care about maximizing profit. They want money, and that is all they are focused on. Everything is about making the most money and cool stuff is only made if it can be certain to make more money than not cool stuff. Has Apple or Google ever acted in a way that is not ethical? Almost certainly, but for the most part the companies are not about getting our money, but rather doing cool stuff. The results are fairly obvious as well. They make the cool stuff. Companies that are not motivated to make cool stuff, from the top down, usually fail to do so, because those in command cannot see past their pocketbooks to see the potential of innovation.
I nominate, the above post, for most commas, used per sentence, ever posted, on slashdot.
I'm flattered, but I hardly think four commas is the record. Nor were any used inappropriately. There is no grammar lesson needed, although perhaps I should stop following the guidelines set down by the Chicago Manual of Style. It might be a bit wordy for a blog.,,,,,,,,,,,,
And your points one through five are more likely to occur (with 99.0% certainty) in places with electronic voting machines because? You address possible reasons for the discrepency, but not for the discrepancy only occurring in places with electronic voting machines. I think you missed the point of this analysis.
Let me first congratulate you on addressing the actual data and report, as opposed to ad hominem attacks and irrelevant conjectures.
I don't see them applying any individual linear regressions, just a consolidated one and an averaged one by county. Can you point this out more specifically? As far as the need for this type of analysis, I'd say that in the absence of the ability to do complete recounts (especially lacking any paper trail) an analysis of the reported election totals as compared to expected totals is vital to safeguarding our electoral process. I also think that special concern should be applied to electronic voting systems, given their unverifiable nature and proven poor track record. Given that several of these systems returned results so obviously wrong that it was apparent to everyone involved that recounts were needed, do you not think it likely that there were also a number of smaller incorrect results that were not easily noticeable? Do you think that these machines are much more likely to provide hugely incorrect results, as opposed to slightly incorrect results? If so, why?
You complain about the data used for this analysis, claiming that it is too old, and likely invalid. What more accurate sources are available for this type of analysis? Should we just take all of the numbers reported on faith, assuming that the machines can't be wrong (even though we know they are) and that no one would cheat?
True. But so are the official vote counts. The question is not, "which is authoritative." The question is, "are we being accurately represented." Don't you think that is a valid and important question to ask?
you'll note that this "statistical anomaly" starts with the assumption that there was fraud
Umm, there was fraud. There is always fraud and honest mistakes. The conclusion of the paper was the aberration was non-random, not that it was fraud. And the anomaly is tied to the electronic voting machines. Electronic voting machines are provably inaccurate. There have been dozens of verified cases now of numbers that cannot possibly be correct because the totals don't add up.
They were focused on their preselected sour grapes excuse, "the machines are fixed!"
If only that were the case. The problems with electronic voting machines don't even register on the radar for democrats or republicans. Neither has really brought up the issue. The news hardly even covers it, there was one or two articles discussing it before the election, and afterwards they only report the places that have provably wrong numbers to a ludicrous degree, i.e. twice as many votes as voters.
You make a good point about possible past voter fraud being a cause of the statistical aberration. It is a real possibility. I believe you are mistaken about the use of exit polls, the paper cites both exit polls, and previous elections as sources. I'm somewhat dubious that voter fraud would be occurring in virtually all of the counties using electronic voting machines (maybe I'm not cynical enough.) Also, how do you account for those locations that were already using electronic voting machines?
That doesn't mean we shouldn't demand far better work from people who make such outlandish claims.
Thanks for correcting my spelling, I'll refrain from correcting yours. You still have not made any logical arguments or pointed out any flaws with the actual work in question. In what way should their work be better? What is wrong with their numbers? And why should Kerry's personal interest in the election results make him a better judge of the numbers? Finally, why would you decide to categorize me with a sport's announcer, or for that matter at all? Do you have trouble dealing with people instead of stereotypes?
There were quite a few articles about progressives, democrat lawyers, and michael moore's cameramen herassing voters so that might explain it.
Ahh, but why only in places that used electronic voting, as opposed to all locations (to a statistically significant degree)? Unless you can find a correlation between the people you mentioned harassing voters, but only in locations with electronic voting machine, I don't see how that could be a cause.
Whenever I see someone attack the credibility of an institution or individual who has published an academic or scientific paper I immediately look to see if the paper is complete and has all the numbers and methodologies included. If it does, as in this case, I wonder, "why are they attacking the source and not the hypothesis? Is it because they looked at the paper and could not find any flaws? Is it because they are an idiot and cannot understand the paper? Are they lazy, and unwilling to even consider the work of others?"
Basically, you just posted a reminder to any critical thinker that most people are stupid, unreasoning, and lazy so I should pay attention to whomever you are attacking instead of you.
Uh, run a test? Before the election, vote for Kerry 50 times. Vote for Bush 50 times. Tally the results. If it's not 50 and 50, something is jacked up. It doesn't seem to be rocket science to me.
That would be an improvement, but still is not in any way proof that the system works. Currently they usually put the system in "test mode" where it puts the test "testing" on the screen, sits idle for a minute, then issues the all ok. But even with testing such as you describe, who is to say the computer won't change the 1000th vote, or the 100-200th votes? Who is to say it won't just look at the totals, then change them in the end? Who is to say there is not a easter egg in the system where you select both candidates simultaneously, then draw your finger along the bottom of the screen and select the candidate you want to win? Without the code, there is no way to know. I'm afraid your solution is not viable.
Kerry lost. Period. Even he thinks these miscount conspiracies don't add up.
Heh, That is some fine reasoning there. A great logical argument, state your opinion, then spell out the punctuation you just used, followed by the punctuation again (in case anyone forgot) then site a politician's opinion as your expert testimony on statistics.
I'm not saying Bush did not win, but the election results should be inspected and analyzed by anyone and everyone.
They neglect to factor in the "Hurricane effect." The President's visits and aid raised him popularity in the area.
From glancing at the numbers, I think you are wrong. Why would a hurricane, cause there to be more discrepancy between who people said they voted for, coming out of the polls, and who actually was given the votes? You are looking for explanations, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I don't think the one you give makes any sense. The only sort of things I can think of, that might account for such a discrepancy, are people not wanting to admit, to people doing polling, who it was they voted for. Perhaps if the persons polled felt intimidated, or ashamed of their votes. Even that, however, is really iffy. I think technical errors, or voter fraud, are the most likely culprits for this statistical anomaly.
Blizzard's games (aside from WoWC) and Half-life 2 are both games that can be played in single player mode, or collaboratively online. You can label them both as MMORPG or neither of them, but it does not matter. Blizzard's games don't require you to connect to a central server for single player or LAN modes. Valve's do.
haven't logged into Steam since I installed the game...Again, I ask, why do people ignore this?
Now ask yourself again, why did you have to log in to steam at all to play the offline mode? Why does a local game require you to connect to their service? Is it because it will help stop piracy? Does it stop piracy? Or does it just make for a convenient way for them to gather info on you for marketing, and provide them with a way to send you crap? On top of that it is a huge inconvenience to people who did buy the game and found themselves unable to play because Valve's servers were overloaded. It also excludes people from playing who do not have internet service (such people do exist you know.)
Ok, so who are you going to buy Half-Life 2 from then? Some pirate? Give me a break, dumbass. Valve's your only source so quit whining.
Don't be a moron. I'm not going to buy Half-life 2 at all. You know you don't actually have to buy every game, right? I will buy something from one of their competitors who does not treat me as shabbily. Maybe it is time for you to reconsider your role as a consumer.
These same server problems affect every MMORPG on day 1
That's funny. I have bought a number of Blizzard games and I have never, ever, had a problem playing the LAN or single-player components immediately, without having internet access.
What valve did was inconvenience their user's without effecting piracy at all. There are already hacked copies that play without an internet connection floating around. Valve just made the official version (in addition the unavoidably costing money) less functional, and harder to use than the hacked version. And you know what, I'm not buying the game...or pirating it. I'll buy from someone who does not automatically assume I'm a criminal. They won't know or care, but maybe, in time, developers will realize that treating their customers like crap is not OK.
There's quite a large number of us who manage to live quite happily in today's modern society without any animals having to die in order to feed us.
So you prefer to kill living things that can't run away? I take it you are a strict vegan and grow all your own food, without the use of pesticides? And I suppose you don't swat mosquitos, and take drugs to suppress your immune system so that it does not kill all those microorganisms automatically everyday? And you carefully inspect the ground before you walk, to avoid stepping on any insects or worms?
Some of us prefer to live the way we have evolved, and not deny ourselves all of our natural instincts. Most animals, including humans, are born with some sort of predatory instinct. If you think that humans killing animals for food is more wrong than lions or chimpanzees doing so, you are just being elitist. We're all animals and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing other animals. If you choose to kill as few as possible, well hey that is your choice. Just cut the "holier than thou" BS you're a killer, we all are.
I agree completely, and have seen this sort of thing first hand. Most of the anti-hunting people I know think animals are those talking cartoons they see in Disney films. Tragically wolves and other large predators are very rare these days, and completely gone in some regions. As a result, most of the animals I see dying, die either from hunting or from disease. As someone who has had to throw away several game animals because large portions of their flesh had rotted off, or because they had pus-dripping wounds and parasites all over them, I can tell you that hunting is probably the most humane way animals die in the wild. Personally I think everyone should be required to personally kill an animal, gut it, clean it, and butcher it before they are allowed to buy meat in the store. Anyone who objects to hunting on moral grounds is either a hypocrite or a vegetarian.
Yeah, because announcing the functional version of a project to run Apple software is just like handing them free money. Except the software is free to start with. But it does allow people to buy things from Apple. Except, Apple is not really making any money off of the sales. All this does is encourage people to buy ipods from Apple, and discourage them from buying computers from Apple. I can't really see how this is advertising for Apple. Especially given the semi-functional nature of the release. If anything, this probably annoys Apple, since it gives Linux users the ability to run one of their flagship pieces of software in a broken and semi-functional sort of way.
My main point of concern with Wikipedia is it's political biases.
Your point is valid. The way I see it is as follows:
Wikipedia - controversial, contradictory, sometimes extreme points of view on current politics.
Encyclopedia - no articles on current politics (wait until there is a winner, then use their version.)
I guess it does not matter too much to me since I don't think I would ever use wikipedia as a source for political information. I think most of the people concerned about politics are concerned with the information provided to posterity. I just want facts and some popular hypothesis.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
I'm not an Apple zealot. I don't like a lot of the things they do, and their music business using DRM is very questionable. In the end, however, I think that they may have saved us a lot of pain by entering the market. They proved that people wanted, and would pay for digital music, and they provided a loophole in the DRM, so that customers can still do anything they need or want with the music in a legal way.
If Apple did not enter the music business, MS would probably just win, and we would all be stuck with most new music (and most old music) trapped in a DRM format that makes it illegal to copy between machines and formats. We would end up either breaking the law, or paying a tax on music to both MS, and the RIAA, again and again.
I might mention, I'm also not an open source zealot. OS is a great idea, and is a wonderful value proposition, that has really not been taken advantage of they way it should be. That said, I have no problem with closed source, and if someone wants to sell closed source software, I don't have any problems with that. Apple has been pretty good about adhering to standards and open formats, especially of late. It is entirely possible that this would not continue if they had a huge market share, like MS, but since that is never going to happen, I'm not really worried about it. People rant and scream about MS, because MS pisses on us again and again. Anyone in the computer business, or any business that relies upon computers has suffered at MS's hands. If not for their business practices, and illegal antics we'd probably be ten years ahead of where we are today. They have disemboweled the market. The only good thing that has come out of it, is that OS has evolved into such a powerful force because of the hardship it has had to endure. The strength of open source may eventually remake both the software and intellectual property industries.
google... could just merge with mozilla.
Yeah, you could have a hybrid, half commercial entity, half computer application. Employees could install themselves on computers to save on food costs, and everyone could browse the company looking for porn. Just think of the possibilities!
Google web based desktop/app suite poses a far greater threat to Linux then the massively entrenched MS.
I don't think so. If Google goes after MS, Linux is its natural ally. Google will have to fight against MS's lock in and fighting on top of Windows is not easy when your opponent owns the code. It would take relatively little cash to keep their web-based desktop functional in Linux as well as Windows. This provides a way to move their customers away from the competition's playing field, and provides extra incentive for switchers (save $70 per machine in Windows licensing fees). Coupling that with improved security, near zero worms/viruses/trojans, and protection from MS's vendor lock-in, and you have a recipe that is very favorable for both Google and Linux. It makes for a very nice and gradual transition away, with several available bail-out points.
these guys are no more saints then any other business.
I, respectfully, disagree. Just because companies are generally amoral does not mean all of them behave in the same way. Some companies try to retain the trust of customers though honesty, and fair dealing. Some companies often used as examples here on Slashdot are Google and Apple. I think this is for a very good reason. Both companies are under the control of geeks who want to do "cool stuff." While responsible for making money and increasing shareholder value, it is obvious that the people in charge really want to make cool things, and the money making is not all there is to it. Executives who run other companies, like say, Dell or Walmart only seem to care about maximizing profit. They want money, and that is all they are focused on. Everything is about making the most money and cool stuff is only made if it can be certain to make more money than not cool stuff. Has Apple or Google ever acted in a way that is not ethical? Almost certainly, but for the most part the companies are not about getting our money, but rather doing cool stuff. The results are fairly obvious as well. They make the cool stuff. Companies that are not motivated to make cool stuff, from the top down, usually fail to do so, because those in command cannot see past their pocketbooks to see the potential of innovation.
I nominate, the above post, for most commas, used per sentence, ever posted, on slashdot.
I'm flattered, but I hardly think four commas is the record. Nor were any used inappropriately. There is no grammar lesson needed, although perhaps I should stop following the guidelines set down by the Chicago Manual of Style. It might be a bit wordy for a blog. ,,,,,,,,,,,,
And your points one through five are more likely to occur (with 99.0% certainty) in places with electronic voting machines because? You address possible reasons for the discrepency, but not for the discrepancy only occurring in places with electronic voting machines. I think you missed the point of this analysis.
Let me first congratulate you on addressing the actual data and report, as opposed to ad hominem attacks and irrelevant conjectures.
I don't see them applying any individual linear regressions, just a consolidated one and an averaged one by county. Can you point this out more specifically? As far as the need for this type of analysis, I'd say that in the absence of the ability to do complete recounts (especially lacking any paper trail) an analysis of the reported election totals as compared to expected totals is vital to safeguarding our electoral process. I also think that special concern should be applied to electronic voting systems, given their unverifiable nature and proven poor track record. Given that several of these systems returned results so obviously wrong that it was apparent to everyone involved that recounts were needed, do you not think it likely that there were also a number of smaller incorrect results that were not easily noticeable? Do you think that these machines are much more likely to provide hugely incorrect results, as opposed to slightly incorrect results? If so, why?
You complain about the data used for this analysis, claiming that it is too old, and likely invalid. What more accurate sources are available for this type of analysis? Should we just take all of the numbers reported on faith, assuming that the machines can't be wrong (even though we know they are) and that no one would cheat?
exit polls can (and are) wrong
True. But so are the official vote counts. The question is not, "which is authoritative." The question is, "are we being accurately represented." Don't you think that is a valid and important question to ask?
you'll note that this "statistical anomaly" starts with the assumption that there was fraud
Umm, there was fraud. There is always fraud and honest mistakes. The conclusion of the paper was the aberration was non-random, not that it was fraud. And the anomaly is tied to the electronic voting machines. Electronic voting machines are provably inaccurate. There have been dozens of verified cases now of numbers that cannot possibly be correct because the totals don't add up.
They were focused on their preselected sour grapes excuse, "the machines are fixed!"
If only that were the case. The problems with electronic voting machines don't even register on the radar for democrats or republicans. Neither has really brought up the issue. The news hardly even covers it, there was one or two articles discussing it before the election, and afterwards they only report the places that have provably wrong numbers to a ludicrous degree, i.e. twice as many votes as voters.
You make a good point about possible past voter fraud being a cause of the statistical aberration. It is a real possibility. I believe you are mistaken about the use of exit polls, the paper cites both exit polls, and previous elections as sources. I'm somewhat dubious that voter fraud would be occurring in virtually all of the counties using electronic voting machines (maybe I'm not cynical enough.) Also, how do you account for those locations that were already using electronic voting machines?
That doesn't mean we shouldn't demand far better work from people who make such outlandish claims.
Thanks for correcting my spelling, I'll refrain from correcting yours. You still have not made any logical arguments or pointed out any flaws with the actual work in question. In what way should their work be better? What is wrong with their numbers? And why should Kerry's personal interest in the election results make him a better judge of the numbers? Finally, why would you decide to categorize me with a sport's announcer, or for that matter at all? Do you have trouble dealing with people instead of stereotypes?
There were quite a few articles about progressives, democrat lawyers, and michael moore's cameramen herassing voters so that might explain it.
Ahh, but why only in places that used electronic voting, as opposed to all locations (to a statistically significant degree)? Unless you can find a correlation between the people you mentioned harassing voters, but only in locations with electronic voting machine, I don't see how that could be a cause.
Whenever I see someone attack the credibility of an institution or individual who has published an academic or scientific paper I immediately look to see if the paper is complete and has all the numbers and methodologies included. If it does, as in this case, I wonder, "why are they attacking the source and not the hypothesis? Is it because they looked at the paper and could not find any flaws? Is it because they are an idiot and cannot understand the paper? Are they lazy, and unwilling to even consider the work of others?"
Basically, you just posted a reminder to any critical thinker that most people are stupid, unreasoning, and lazy so I should pay attention to whomever you are attacking instead of you.
Uh, run a test? Before the election, vote for Kerry 50 times. Vote for Bush 50 times. Tally the results. If it's not 50 and 50, something is jacked up. It doesn't seem to be rocket science to me.
That would be an improvement, but still is not in any way proof that the system works. Currently they usually put the system in "test mode" where it puts the test "testing" on the screen, sits idle for a minute, then issues the all ok. But even with testing such as you describe, who is to say the computer won't change the 1000th vote, or the 100-200th votes? Who is to say it won't just look at the totals, then change them in the end? Who is to say there is not a easter egg in the system where you select both candidates simultaneously, then draw your finger along the bottom of the screen and select the candidate you want to win? Without the code, there is no way to know. I'm afraid your solution is not viable.
Kerry lost. Period. Even he thinks these miscount conspiracies don't add up.
Heh, That is some fine reasoning there. A great logical argument, state your opinion, then spell out the punctuation you just used, followed by the punctuation again (in case anyone forgot) then site a politician's opinion as your expert testimony on statistics.
I'm not saying Bush did not win, but the election results should be inspected and analyzed by anyone and everyone.
They neglect to factor in the "Hurricane effect." The President's visits and aid raised him popularity in the area.
From glancing at the numbers, I think you are wrong. Why would a hurricane, cause there to be more discrepancy between who people said they voted for, coming out of the polls, and who actually was given the votes? You are looking for explanations, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I don't think the one you give makes any sense. The only sort of things I can think of, that might account for such a discrepancy, are people not wanting to admit, to people doing polling, who it was they voted for. Perhaps if the persons polled felt intimidated, or ashamed of their votes. Even that, however, is really iffy. I think technical errors, or voter fraud, are the most likely culprits for this statistical anomaly.
Blizzard's games (aside from WoWC) and Half-life 2 are both games that can be played in single player mode, or collaboratively online. You can label them both as MMORPG or neither of them, but it does not matter. Blizzard's games don't require you to connect to a central server for single player or LAN modes. Valve's do.
haven't logged into Steam since I installed the game...Again, I ask, why do people ignore this?
Now ask yourself again, why did you have to log in to steam at all to play the offline mode? Why does a local game require you to connect to their service? Is it because it will help stop piracy? Does it stop piracy? Or does it just make for a convenient way for them to gather info on you for marketing, and provide them with a way to send you crap? On top of that it is a huge inconvenience to people who did buy the game and found themselves unable to play because Valve's servers were overloaded. It also excludes people from playing who do not have internet service (such people do exist you know.)
Ok, so who are you going to buy Half-Life 2 from then? Some pirate? Give me a break, dumbass. Valve's your only source so quit whining.
Don't be a moron. I'm not going to buy Half-life 2 at all. You know you don't actually have to buy every game, right? I will buy something from one of their competitors who does not treat me as shabbily. Maybe it is time for you to reconsider your role as a consumer.
These same server problems affect every MMORPG on day 1
That's funny. I have bought a number of Blizzard games and I have never, ever, had a problem playing the LAN or single-player components immediately, without having internet access.
What valve did was inconvenience their user's without effecting piracy at all. There are already hacked copies that play without an internet connection floating around. Valve just made the official version (in addition the unavoidably costing money) less functional, and harder to use than the hacked version. And you know what, I'm not buying the game...or pirating it. I'll buy from someone who does not automatically assume I'm a criminal. They won't know or care, but maybe, in time, developers will realize that treating their customers like crap is not OK.
There's quite a large number of us who manage to live quite happily in today's modern society without any animals having to die in order to feed us.
So you prefer to kill living things that can't run away? I take it you are a strict vegan and grow all your own food, without the use of pesticides? And I suppose you don't swat mosquitos, and take drugs to suppress your immune system so that it does not kill all those microorganisms automatically everyday? And you carefully inspect the ground before you walk, to avoid stepping on any insects or worms?
Some of us prefer to live the way we have evolved, and not deny ourselves all of our natural instincts. Most animals, including humans, are born with some sort of predatory instinct. If you think that humans killing animals for food is more wrong than lions or chimpanzees doing so, you are just being elitist. We're all animals and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing other animals. If you choose to kill as few as possible, well hey that is your choice. Just cut the "holier than thou" BS you're a killer, we all are.
I agree completely, and have seen this sort of thing first hand. Most of the anti-hunting people I know think animals are those talking cartoons they see in Disney films. Tragically wolves and other large predators are very rare these days, and completely gone in some regions. As a result, most of the animals I see dying, die either from hunting or from disease. As someone who has had to throw away several game animals because large portions of their flesh had rotted off, or because they had pus-dripping wounds and parasites all over them, I can tell you that hunting is probably the most humane way animals die in the wild. Personally I think everyone should be required to personally kill an animal, gut it, clean it, and butcher it before they are allowed to buy meat in the store. Anyone who objects to hunting on moral grounds is either a hypocrite or a vegetarian.
Yeah, because announcing the functional version of a project to run Apple software is just like handing them free money. Except the software is free to start with. But it does allow people to buy things from Apple. Except, Apple is not really making any money off of the sales. All this does is encourage people to buy ipods from Apple, and discourage them from buying computers from Apple. I can't really see how this is advertising for Apple. Especially given the semi-functional nature of the release. If anything, this probably annoys Apple, since it gives Linux users the ability to run one of their flagship pieces of software in a broken and semi-functional sort of way.
My main point of concern with Wikipedia is it's political biases.
Your point is valid. The way I see it is as follows:
Wikipedia - controversial, contradictory, sometimes extreme points of view on current politics.
Encyclopedia - no articles on current politics (wait until there is a winner, then use their version.)
I guess it does not matter too much to me since I don't think I would ever use wikipedia as a source for political information. I think most of the people concerned about politics are concerned with the information provided to posterity. I just want facts and some popular hypothesis.