And hey... watch out, and don't forget, these fly-by-nighters only offer a 5 year warranty on their internal drives. And you can bet their drives are gonna die right after their warranty ends... ok, well, within 5 or 10 years of right after their warranty ends... ok, well... they can't last forever, can they?
tried to edit out parts of his article that were true and sourced
First of all, its not me, but the article that claims that was why he was banned for life. (If that was the reason, I'm not surprised, if it isn't, I really want to know what he did, and how many others have been banned for life.) Secondly, assuming he was completely in the wrong with his edits, doing just that isn't normal cause for being banned for life, is it? I've never heard of that before.
What I've noticed that really bothers me about some articles, esp. ones that are about individuals that, you know, aren't of the stature of, say, Thomas Jefferson, but more of the stature of Brandt himself, is that many want to put in negative and biased opinions and call them fact by just calling attention to "criticism," as if all criticism is significant, and its done in an way to fuel their own self-importance, and they get away with it so long as they are "sourced." And its ridiculous what counts as a source!...obscure blogs, incredulous articles, archived mailing lists, and the worst of them all, freaking slashdot posts! Any encyclopedia that tries to prop up its credibility by sourcing the post of some deranged slashdot reader is undeniably suspect!
By the way... I'm not criticising you personally, and its not all of wiki's articles that bother me. I've never looked at the History of Alaska, but it sounds like one among the type of subjects that don't seem to draw in the whole "my opinion is so important" crowd. I really don't see much difference between the classified vandals, and the wiki admins (you know the ones... totally arrogant) that feel the need to have their bias strewn across every page they touch. The sad thing is that the "good" admins, the ones that are balanced and objective (and probably very intelligent and skilled) also have a high tolerance for the crappy admins. That's their weakness... tolerance for bias and arrogance in their fellow admins. So when someone objects to incidental and even malicious information that is placed in an article, the arrogant admin comes on strong siting reasons for it being kept, while the good admin mildly backs him up, maybe as a political favor, maybe because he's "seen good in him," but mostly because he is highly tolerant of him, and the more objective but lowly user just eventually gives up in frustration.
With the weak sources being allowed, its sort of a "guilty until proven innocent" kind of system. e.g. Joe gets an article because of something he did that makes him notable. People that know him add bits of information about his life that really has nothing to do with what makes him notable, but still, its likely true, and harmless either way. A critic comes along smearing criticism about what makes Joe notable, representing some tiny fraction of a minority percentage that has negative opinions of Joe. The critics statements get to stay so long as he is sourced. But the source "proving" his opinion is a valid one, regardles of the fact that it neither caused Joe's notableness nor detracts from it, gets to remain because he sources 1) a slanted editorial 2) his own blog 3) a slashdot post... etc. Any attempts to remove the criticism, and the critic complains, a discussion is then formed, and more worthless posting back and forth ensues until the critic gets his way, espescially if he happens to be an admin himself.... which leads me to another complaint. Admins shouldn't be allowed to post anything, neither in articles nor as a mediator. This would go a long way in actually gaining real credability.
I can't believe this guy gave up his job over this! So what if he did what he did? Where did he break the law? Where did he do something that isn't done thousands of times a day, probably, by others? I see the moral issue, duplicity, but its a relatively mild one, and its not cause for dismissal or resignation.
Someone needs to sue Wikipedia for libel. I know there are a lot of good people contributing to Wikipedia, but the facists there have taken over and ruined it. Brandt is right... there needs to be accountability, and furthermore, some better decision-making process where not just the online bullies get their way because they feel strongly about something.
As a direct result of the creation of Wikipedia Watch, Brandt was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is fascist. I've never seen from where they get any credibility whatsoever.
Not to say this isn't bad for the heart (how the fuck would I know?), but the problem with the oversized heart isn't really its being oversized... but rather that the chambers of the heart get too small.
until nix because friendly and usable enough to run all the programs i need to run
Give OS X a try. I'll bet you ANYTHING... it runs everything you need. You'll never look back. Sure, you'll still think that you need to need to keep it streamlined and not install too many applications for fear of slowing the computer down... but these phantom nightmares will pass in time, and you find out there is precious little you can do to break it or impede its performance.
Its the same deal as microsoft making anti spyware software for windows. In both cases, windows is the core of the problem.
It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't planning on charging for it... that's fucked. Makes me wonder when they're going to start charging for their patches. They probably should. Its not like the Legion are going to stop using Windows anytime soon. I swear, those lames won't even consider another OS... not with the spectacular BS that is.NET
As an OS X user, and a Windows admin, honestly, its actually starting to grow on me... I kind of like the Windows Classic (NT or 2K) interface so much, I'm building a NetBSD box that runs an interface that matches the look and feel of Windows. (I haven't seen it yet... and if its XP its matching... I won't run it. That is way too craptastic... bizarro-S-X.)
If I could pay $2 for a song, then, because of the demand for the song the market price of that song increases to, say, $2.35, then I ought to be able to sell the song I just bought and make me a profit. But of course, that's just silly. It works the other way. The more demand, the less cost.
All things being equal, a metal ball will bounce higher than a rubber one because the compression snap ends up being of greater energy... er... after dented when the bounce is initiated, the metal ball returns to its original shape faster, propelling it higher than a similar rubber ball. I figured the same would apply to cannon balls since they are metal (aren't they?)...
I just don't get it... is it because cannon balls are so heavy that it appears all/.ers are in agreement that they don't bounce? Why don't they bounce?
If they were planing on building 300+ of these things, why not have built-in broadband wificasting ability... and just replace the internet without having to lay all that expensive cable?
Prior to comment, I'd like to say that its a shame that the enemy of my enemy is my friend doesn't seem to work anymore between OS X and Linux. Its the Apple zealots vs the Penguinista's now... and it doesn't even seem to be a M$ plot... What's surprising to me is that hard core developers in the know are leaning towards Apple in a big way, and this is just due to a brilliant principle built into OS X: please the developers (we've screwed them in the past... now we make up for it).
Apple made a slightly wrong move in even contacting these geniuses... and all they have to do now is have a worldwide campeign after these laptops are distributed offering their OS for free. I think that the speed at which these laptops switch will increase at exponential rates.
Now that I've made my comment, I'd just like to say that I am probably an Apple zealot. I haven't loved everything they've done, just most of it, and I'm not a developer, just a technophile. The problem with linux, and the reason why what I've suggested above will work, is that linux breaks itself. It is not just that it is suprememly configurable... its that if you are not constantly on top of things, it will just break on its own accord. You take two of these laptops side by side, one running linux, the other OS X, and the one with linux will be a paper weight within months, and the one with OS X will continue to work and work and just work. It was silly for the Makers to turn Apple down, as linux is in dire need of user support, and there is no support infrastructure, espescially one that could handle something on such a large scale. Apple has excellent support already in place.
What I want to know is... what company has enough balls to complain to our government that this whole project is anti-capitalist, and that it engages in anti-competitive practices... and get it shut down?
Upper lever company officials have decided to make the United States Judicial Branch a part of Microsoft. The I.R.S was 'thrown in' to sweeten the deal. The acquisition took place behind closed doors late Tuesday afternoon for a reported $2 trillion. Vice-President Cheney claims that it is the first time in American history that an administration has managed a budget surplus of over half a trillion dollars. Microsoft's first order of business was to replace the Supreme Court with an automatic updating service accessable through their web site via Windows XP at a cost of $400 per license.
"By making the Judicial Branch a part of Microsoft, we hope to offer our customers unsurpassed customer service. This is a good thing," says Bill Gates.
Concerning some of the earliest abuses I read about, prosecuting crack dealers under the Patriot Act is creative... but the same principles would apply to McDonald's and the tobacco companies... if only crack dealers would wise up and get a powerful lobby, maybe the FBI wouldn't have to abuse the Patriot Act so much.
You know what happens when prosecutors and law enforcement break the rules and abuse power? That's right, kids... nothing.
There are innocent people in jail. Innocent people have been sentenced to death in America. When a district discovers an error, or DNA evidence becomes available that wasn't previously, and clears a person who has been rotting in jail for ten years, mostly there is no follow-up... innocent man goes free, end of story. No bloody lawsuit. No prosecutor disbarred for grievious abuses of presecutorial discretion (which, btw, is absolute). No shit.
Our legal system is supposedly based on "Innocent until proven guilty," but there is no "innocent." The best you can do is "not guilty," which isn't the same. And a problem exists in that being accused is the same as being guilty... because prosecutors don't make mistakes.
They disprove things that are common misconceptions, not myths.
'Myth' is a word that is overused as a pejorative in the English language, describing something that it was never intended to describe. It's silly... when we can just use the word "misconception" or "lie" or "deception" or "falsehood," or a half dozen other words, but instead use the word "myth" because it sounds better. When someone uses the word in this fashion, they make light of the greatness of actual mythology.
I understand that the gentlemen on the show are knowledgeable or experienced, but do they have to be such asses all the time?
Slashdot Mirror
And hey... watch out, and don't forget, these fly-by-nighters only offer a 5 year warranty on their internal drives. And you can bet their drives are gonna die right after their warranty ends... ok, well, within 5 or 10 years of right after their warranty ends... ok, well... they can't last forever, can they?
Every thing generates gravity.
If they didn't exist, neither would gravity.
First of all, its not me, but the article that claims that was why he was banned for life. (If that was the reason, I'm not surprised, if it isn't, I really want to know what he did, and how many others have been banned for life.) Secondly, assuming he was completely in the wrong with his edits, doing just that isn't normal cause for being banned for life, is it? I've never heard of that before.
What I've noticed that really bothers me about some articles, esp. ones that are about individuals that, you know, aren't of the stature of, say, Thomas Jefferson, but more of the stature of Brandt himself, is that many want to put in negative and biased opinions and call them fact by just calling attention to "criticism," as if all criticism is significant, and its done in an way to fuel their own self-importance, and they get away with it so long as they are "sourced." And its ridiculous what counts as a source! ...obscure blogs, incredulous articles, archived mailing lists, and the worst of them all, freaking slashdot posts! Any encyclopedia that tries to prop up its credibility by sourcing the post of some deranged slashdot reader is undeniably suspect!
By the way... I'm not criticising you personally, and its not all of wiki's articles that bother me. I've never looked at the History of Alaska, but it sounds like one among the type of subjects that don't seem to draw in the whole "my opinion is so important" crowd. I really don't see much difference between the classified vandals, and the wiki admins (you know the ones... totally arrogant) that feel the need to have their bias strewn across every page they touch. The sad thing is that the "good" admins, the ones that are balanced and objective (and probably very intelligent and skilled) also have a high tolerance for the crappy admins. That's their weakness... tolerance for bias and arrogance in their fellow admins. So when someone objects to incidental and even malicious information that is placed in an article, the arrogant admin comes on strong siting reasons for it being kept, while the good admin mildly backs him up, maybe as a political favor, maybe because he's "seen good in him," but mostly because he is highly tolerant of him, and the more objective but lowly user just eventually gives up in frustration.
With the weak sources being allowed, its sort of a "guilty until proven innocent" kind of system. e.g. Joe gets an article because of something he did that makes him notable. People that know him add bits of information about his life that really has nothing to do with what makes him notable, but still, its likely true, and harmless either way. A critic comes along smearing criticism about what makes Joe notable, representing some tiny fraction of a minority percentage that has negative opinions of Joe. The critics statements get to stay so long as he is sourced. But the source "proving" his opinion is a valid one, regardles of the fact that it neither caused Joe's notableness nor detracts from it, gets to remain because he sources 1) a slanted editorial 2) his own blog 3) a slashdot post... etc. Any attempts to remove the criticism, and the critic complains, a discussion is then formed, and more worthless posting back and forth ensues until the critic gets his way, espescially if he happens to be an admin himself.... which leads me to another complaint. Admins shouldn't be allowed to post anything, neither in articles nor as a mediator. This would go a long way in actually gaining real credability.
/. gets it right, for once.
I can't believe this guy gave up his job over this! So what if he did what he did? Where did he break the law? Where did he do something that isn't done thousands of times a day, probably, by others? I see the moral issue, duplicity, but its a relatively mild one, and its not cause for dismissal or resignation.
Someone needs to sue Wikipedia for libel. I know there are a lot of good people contributing to Wikipedia, but the facists there have taken over and ruined it. Brandt is right... there needs to be accountability, and furthermore, some better decision-making process where not just the online bullies get their way because they feel strongly about something.
As a direct result of the creation of Wikipedia Watch, Brandt was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is fascist. I've never seen from where they get any credibility whatsoever.
Not to say this isn't bad for the heart (how the fuck would I know?), but the problem with the oversized heart isn't really its being oversized... but rather that the chambers of the heart get too small.
Give OS X a try. I'll bet you ANYTHING... it runs everything you need. You'll never look back. Sure, you'll still think that you need to need to keep it streamlined and not install too many applications for fear of slowing the computer down... but these phantom nightmares will pass in time, and you find out there is precious little you can do to break it or impede its performance.
It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't planning on charging for it... that's fucked. Makes me wonder when they're going to start charging for their patches. They probably should. Its not like the Legion are going to stop using Windows anytime soon. I swear, those lames won't even consider another OS... not with the spectacular BS that is .NET
As an OS X user, and a Windows admin, honestly, its actually starting to grow on me... I kind of like the Windows Classic (NT or 2K) interface so much, I'm building a NetBSD box that runs an interface that matches the look and feel of Windows. (I haven't seen it yet... and if its XP its matching... I won't run it. That is way too craptastic... bizarro-S-X .)
The trunk? Oh... you don't want to look in there.
Obviously, you should have planned your sabotage prior to resigning.
and replace the 38th Parallel with Media Player.
If I could pay $2 for a song, then, because of the demand for the song the market price of that song increases to, say, $2.35, then I ought to be able to sell the song I just bought and make me a profit. But of course, that's just silly. It works the other way. The more demand, the less cost.
They're investing millions in it... and they use the stupid word 'Ajax' now.
Both those should be scheduled substances, too... espescially the latter.
All things being equal, a metal ball will bounce higher than a rubber one because the compression snap ends up being of greater energy... er... after dented when the bounce is initiated, the metal ball returns to its original shape faster, propelling it higher than a similar rubber ball. I figured the same would apply to cannon balls since they are metal (aren't they?)... I just don't get it... is it because cannon balls are so heavy that it appears all /.ers are in agreement that they don't bounce? Why don't they bounce?
If they were planing on building 300+ of these things, why not have built-in broadband wificasting ability... and just replace the internet without having to lay all that expensive cable?
its even closer to the eMac
Prior to comment, I'd like to say that its a shame that the enemy of my enemy is my friend doesn't seem to work anymore between OS X and Linux. Its the Apple zealots vs the Penguinista's now... and it doesn't even seem to be a M$ plot... What's surprising to me is that hard core developers in the know are leaning towards Apple in a big way, and this is just due to a brilliant principle built into OS X: please the developers (we've screwed them in the past... now we make up for it).
Apple made a slightly wrong move in even contacting these geniuses... and all they have to do now is have a worldwide campeign after these laptops are distributed offering their OS for free. I think that the speed at which these laptops switch will increase at exponential rates.
Now that I've made my comment, I'd just like to say that I am probably an Apple zealot. I haven't loved everything they've done, just most of it, and I'm not a developer, just a technophile. The problem with linux, and the reason why what I've suggested above will work, is that linux breaks itself. It is not just that it is suprememly configurable... its that if you are not constantly on top of things, it will just break on its own accord. You take two of these laptops side by side, one running linux, the other OS X, and the one with linux will be a paper weight within months, and the one with OS X will continue to work and work and just work. It was silly for the Makers to turn Apple down, as linux is in dire need of user support, and there is no support infrastructure, espescially one that could handle something on such a large scale. Apple has excellent support already in place.
What I want to know is... what company has enough balls to complain to our government that this whole project is anti-capitalist, and that it engages in anti-competitive practices... and get it shut down?
Why not 100, or 10? Time would be so much simpler if it was metric.
at least, right?
When I was coming up, we had to use MIPS to tell how fast a computer was.
"By making the Judicial Branch a part of Microsoft, we hope to offer our customers unsurpassed customer service. This is a good thing," says Bill Gates.
You know what happens when prosecutors and law enforcement break the rules and abuse power? That's right, kids... nothing.
There are innocent people in jail. Innocent people have been sentenced to death in America. When a district discovers an error, or DNA evidence becomes available that wasn't previously, and clears a person who has been rotting in jail for ten years, mostly there is no follow-up... innocent man goes free, end of story. No bloody lawsuit. No prosecutor disbarred for grievious abuses of presecutorial discretion (which, btw, is absolute). No shit.
Our legal system is supposedly based on "Innocent until proven guilty," but there is no "innocent." The best you can do is "not guilty," which isn't the same. And a problem exists in that being accused is the same as being guilty... because prosecutors don't make mistakes.
scary stuff
'Myth' is a word that is overused as a pejorative in the English language, describing something that it was never intended to describe. It's silly... when we can just use the word "misconception" or "lie" or "deception" or "falsehood," or a half dozen other words, but instead use the word "myth" because it sounds better. When someone uses the word in this fashion, they make light of the greatness of actual mythology.
I understand that the gentlemen on the show are knowledgeable or experienced, but do they have to be such asses all the time?
anyone know if this project is affected by this? Is it moving along? Have they made it to alpha yet?
[opendarwin.org]