We already have "a strong central power in the hands of less than savory folk" because of the electoral college you support. Let's not dance around the issue: George W. Bush would not have been elected if not for the electoral college. Your theory is based on on strawman arguments(1), elitism(2), and ad hominem(3), and is completely disproven by the reality we have faced since 2001.
(1) "...we would have taken the vote away from women and blacks, sacrificed on the altar of Federal power. Maybe that was your desire."
(2) "One would have to be grossly inadequate in one's history education to think..."
(3) "...idealistic ninnies such as yourself."
This is why we have a two-party system. If you don't like plurality voting and the crooks it keeps in office, vote for the candidate in favor of instant-runoff voting... Ralph Nader.
Well, you can call it an experiment in rebottling if you like. It began in A.F. 473. The Controllers had the island of Cyprus cleared of all its existing inhabitants and re-colonized with a specially prepared batch of twenty-two thousand Alphas. All agricultural and industrial equipment was handed over to them and they were left to manage their own affairs. The result exactly fulfilled all the theoretical prediotions. The land wasn't properly worked; there were strikes in all the factories; the laws were set at naught, orders disobeyed; all the people detailed for a spell of low-grade work were perpetually intriguing for high-grade jobs, and all the people with high-grade jobs were counter-intriguing at all costs to stay where they were. Within six years they were having a first-class civil war. When nineteen out of the twenty-two thousand had been killed, the survivors unanimously petitioned the World Controllers to resume the government of the island. Which they did. And that was the end of the only society of Alphas that the world has ever seen.
They should totally bump up the number of scientists from 4,500 to the full 10,000. It would be AWESOME.
Major breakthrough, like electro-mechanical switches and transistors, are unpredictable.
Believing, as Kurzweil does, that in the future there will be breakthrough which will make Moore's law go on forever just because it is what happened in the previous century is pseudo-science.
You are misrepresenting Kurzweil; he claims Moore's law will go on until until 2045 (not forever) based on the events of the last 4 billion years (not just the previous century). It's also worth noting that there are many sciences based on unpredictable events, such as evolutionary biology and seismology.
I'm sure plenty of us here were driven to learn more about their computers in order to circumvent the restrictions placed upon them. This will encourage youngsters to learn more about how their cars work, and how to "upgrade" them. Finally, the smart kids will be faster!
The difference is, guns, refrigerators, pens, book bindings, and shopping carts were all invented (and the patents ran out) long before corporations bribed their way into writing all the IP legislation so that patents/copyrights last (for all practical purposes) forever.
Bullshit. New ideas for those products still come out to this day, and they are just as much squashed by patent law as software ideas. It bothers me to no end when programmers (or any other profession for that matter) think it is OK that my freedom of expression and right to conduct business are restricted, but heaven help us if the same laws are applied to everyone.
Currently, instead, deleted articles are zapped: inaccesible, unreadable, unrecoverable. Allowing history access (and an option in "advanced search") for deleted articles would make this issue a lot simpler.
But the author is right on a point: it is a shame that a good article on Wikipedia can not be locked, as it is sure with time it will degrade as I have often found.
Actually, in a way it is locked. Wikipedia has a set of standards for what is a "Good" article and a "Featured" article, with Featured articles being regarded as the best the encyclopedia has to offer. When an article meets one of these milestones, the version is recorded on the talk page. For the Robert A. Heinlein example, you can see that it was reviewed and listed as a featured article based on its state on June 11th, 2005. If you click on that date, it will bring you to a version of the article worthy of being used as a reference.
I'm a wikipedian, and a large portion of my contributions are on Wikipedia's articles for deletion page exactly because of this sort of behavior. The way I see it, Wikipedia has two issues at odds with one another:
1) All articles need to be verifiable. There is an overwhelming consensus that Wikipedia is not a repository of original thought, and everything needs to be sourced.
2) We should not bite the newcomers. As many other posters have mentioned above, when someone spends hours on an article only to see it deleted it is very frustrating, and this drives many editors away before they've had the chance to become useful contributors.
What I've been advocating for a while now is called the "pure wiki deletion system". Essentially, it proposes that instead of most deletions, we instead turn the article into a redirect or a 404 without removing the article history from public view. Deletionpedia works towards this goal and I approve of it, but really Wikipedia should be doing this itself. We need an end to the inclusionist/deletionist "us versus them" mentality and actually work towards consensus, not have an upperclass making rulings on our behalf. Sorry Jimbo, but being an administrator really isa big deal.
These questions presume that the group in charge are automatically "evil" (you use loaded terms).
I believe you were the one who introduced loaded terms when you described pure democracy as "tyranny". Any wording either of us choose is going to be biased, so I'm much more interested in the ideas than the words themselves.
If your view is "there is always going to be a tyranny, so we may as make sure that it benefits the largest slice of society", then I'm not going to argue with you.
"Democracy" just gives everyone proportional say, which is flawed. We should not have proportional say, but letting everyone have equal say means that no progress is ever made, as everyone is always at odds with each other. I do not know how to solve this, but that does not mean that the current system is worth continuing.
I don't think sustainable anarchy is a realistic possibility, so I'm advocating what I consider to be the next best thing. If all you've got are complaints with no better ideas, then I cannot argue with you either.
Utilizing the threat of force and seizure of private property are two of the basic functions of government. In this case, it's authorized expilcitly for use against those who would practice copyright infringement in the constitution.
In my original reply I made it clear that you are legally correct, and my disagreement was on moral grounds. You've now gone back to a legal justification - am I to assume you believe this practice is moral because it is legal, or because the masses support it?
Don't like it? Either convince the majority that it needs to be changed...
That's exactly what I'm trying to do right now.:-P
Pure democracy is tyranny of the minority by the majority. Democracy without limits is never a good idea.
So who should determine those limits? An elite group of land-owning white men? Modern politicians who have done whatever it takes to rise in power? You?
Why is a tyranny of the majority by the minority preferable?
It is simple, it is a question of how they are actually used not how they can be used. If 99% of everyone who used DVD rippers were actually just making backups of their DVDs, this would be a non-issue. Similarly, if 99% of people who bought hammers actually killed someone with them-- I think you would quickly see hammers become illegal.
How do you know what 99% of people are doing with their hammers? Is it any of your business?
guess my statement of morality comes from the first principle of "One who has an idea, takes a risk, and makes an investment ought to reap the rewards of their ideas, risks, and work, and anyone who wants to reap rewards without taking risk or making an investment is unjust".
I think where you and I differ is that I do not see free riders as unjust people. I think the seizure of private property (by court order) and the threat of force (if one doesn't comply) are far worse offenses than free riding.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with using one of these in a baseball is that it would have to retain a standard ball's size, weight, stiffness, and elasticity.
Stallman encourages people to sell their products.
Why didn't you vote for one of the candidates he endorsed?
The fact that you think Afghanistan is libertarian illustrates how well you understand libertarianism.
We already have "a strong central power in the hands of less than savory folk" because of the electoral college you support. Let's not dance around the issue: George W. Bush would not have been elected if not for the electoral college. Your theory is based on on strawman arguments(1), elitism(2), and ad hominem(3), and is completely disproven by the reality we have faced since 2001.
(1) "...we would have taken the vote away from women and blacks, sacrificed on the altar of Federal power. Maybe that was your desire."
(2) "One would have to be grossly inadequate in one's history education to think..."
(3) "...idealistic ninnies such as yourself."
This is why we have a two-party system. If you don't like plurality voting and the crooks it keeps in office, vote for the candidate in favor of instant-runoff voting... Ralph Nader.
They should totally bump up the number of scientists from 4,500 to the full 10,000. It would be AWESOME.
That's a great cliché and all, but no real life democracy is a perfect representation of the people.
I think that's the issue here... a lot of Australians wish they did have the right to free speech.
You are misrepresenting Kurzweil; he claims Moore's law will go on until until 2045 (not forever) based on the events of the last 4 billion years (not just the previous century). It's also worth noting that there are many sciences based on unpredictable events, such as evolutionary biology and seismology.
You are assuming that the content of an encyclopedia should be determined by popular demand, not reliable secondary sources.
I'm sure plenty of us here were driven to learn more about their computers in order to circumvent the restrictions placed upon them. This will encourage youngsters to learn more about how their cars work, and how to "upgrade" them. Finally, the smart kids will be faster!
There are taxes that are not on income.
You think that my work is not covered by copyright as well?
Bullshit. New ideas for those products still come out to this day, and they are just as much squashed by patent law as software ideas. It bothers me to no end when programmers (or any other profession for that matter) think it is OK that my freedom of expression and right to conduct business are restricted, but heaven help us if the same laws are applied to everyone.
That second place just sounds like it has some healthy anti-littering vigilantism.
There's been a fix available for a long time but not enough community support to enable it.
Actually, in a way it is locked. Wikipedia has a set of standards for what is a "Good" article and a "Featured" article, with Featured articles being regarded as the best the encyclopedia has to offer. When an article meets one of these milestones, the version is recorded on the talk page. For the Robert A. Heinlein example, you can see that it was reviewed and listed as a featured article based on its state on June 11th, 2005. If you click on that date, it will bring you to a version of the article worthy of being used as a reference.
I'm a wikipedian, and a large portion of my contributions are on Wikipedia's articles for deletion page exactly because of this sort of behavior. The way I see it, Wikipedia has two issues at odds with one another:
1) All articles need to be verifiable. There is an overwhelming consensus that Wikipedia is not a repository of original thought, and everything needs to be sourced.
2) We should not bite the newcomers. As many other posters have mentioned above, when someone spends hours on an article only to see it deleted it is very frustrating, and this drives many editors away before they've had the chance to become useful contributors.
What I've been advocating for a while now is called the "pure wiki deletion system". Essentially, it proposes that instead of most deletions, we instead turn the article into a redirect or a 404 without removing the article history from public view. Deletionpedia works towards this goal and I approve of it, but really Wikipedia should be doing this itself. We need an end to the inclusionist/deletionist "us versus them" mentality and actually work towards consensus, not have an upperclass making rulings on our behalf. Sorry Jimbo, but being an administrator really is a big deal.
There are a lot more than two.
I believe you were the one who introduced loaded terms when you described pure democracy as "tyranny". Any wording either of us choose is going to be biased, so I'm much more interested in the ideas than the words themselves.
I don't think sustainable anarchy is a realistic possibility, so I'm advocating what I consider to be the next best thing. If all you've got are complaints with no better ideas, then I cannot argue with you either.
In my original reply I made it clear that you are legally correct, and my disagreement was on moral grounds. You've now gone back to a legal justification - am I to assume you believe this practice is moral because it is legal, or because the masses support it?
That's exactly what I'm trying to do right now. :-P
So who should determine those limits? An elite group of land-owning white men? Modern politicians who have done whatever it takes to rise in power? You?
Why is a tyranny of the majority by the minority preferable?
How do you know what 99% of people are doing with their hammers? Is it any of your business?
I think where you and I differ is that I do not see free riders as unjust people. I think the seizure of private property (by court order) and the threat of force (if one doesn't comply) are far worse offenses than free riding.