Could you fill me in ? Are you saying that you can't bring deleted articles back from the dead ?
Correct.
If so, what is the problem?
When an admin clicks the "delete" button, the page gets deleted. That doesn't mean replaced by an empty text, it is actually purged from the database, including all its history.
If not, that's a real problem with the software or policy.
An aside, but I thought Wikipedia stored every version of every page. When a page gets "deleted," it doesn't disappear forever, does it? It just stops showing up in head. Like a source code revision control system.
Wrong. When it gets deleted, it is gone, and the entire history is deleted as well.
Dig now why so many people hate page deletes? It destroys the whole Wiki aspect. In a true Wiki, delete is reserved for mistakes.
You forgot: Seeing the law as the steaming pile of bullshit it is and taking your business out of Germany.
No, I didn't forget that. I initially said "If you do business under the law of the land..."
This is just a plot for internet lawyers (Gravenreuths) to extort money out of people.
Oh dear, now you're mixing things up a lot. Gravenreuth has been thrown out of the picture years ago. By the same government you accuse of cooperating with him.
No, the people you want to look at are called Ursula von der Leyen (minister for families, she invented the "stop" sign censorship, which is why her nickname is Zensursula (censor-sula) and Wolfgang Schäuble, who used to be the minister for the interior, and who many reputable sources claim is very likely suffering from PTSD after an assassination attempt on him many years ago that left him crippled in a wheelchair. His medical records are sealed by the government.
And yes, the government doesn't like privacy very much. However, we also have courts to watch out for us, just like you do, and they are very influential. A lot of bad laws get thrown out or modified by the high courts.
One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.
The keyword being them - not necessarily the project.
There are many discussions in dozens of blogs about what the benefit for the Wikipedia "inner circle" is. Most of it isn't very friendly. Much of it sounds right nevertheless.
Exactly the reasons I left a long time ago. Glad to see others are finally doing the same, maybe the Wikipedia leadership will wake up.
"Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again," adds Ortega."
Been there, done that. You've contributed to improve an article, a dozen people have worked on it. Then a fucktard comes along and nominates it for deletion because of lack of "notability". Delete discussion goes on, clear consensus on "keep".
Two months pass. Article gets improved further. Next fucktard comes along, delete nomination. Discussion, with links to the first one, consensus arrives at "keep" again.
Winter holidays. The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time. This time, vocal people are away or just tired of it all. Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.
So you treat people like shit, destroy the result of their volunteer work, and then you're surprised they're leaving? You've gotta be kidding me.
Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.
Only if you believe that a company the size of Sun can disappear in a puff of smoke.:-)
Sure, Sun would probably go bancrupt. The profitable parts (and some non-profitable, but believed to be profitable or able to be made profitable) would be sold off. A bunch of employees would start their own "Sun 2". Consulting firms would step in to take over maintainance contracts.
Interesting stuff happens when the old dog leaves the barn, you know?
Maybe the law of the land is bullshit? Maybe there is another alternative to "accepting all existing and planned laws" than living in Africa?
Yes, there is. In fact, there are several, among them are elections, writing to your representative, setting up a lobby group. Whining on/. isn't one of them.
Oh, wait, all that already happened. The law didn't fall from the heavens. We Germans sometimes value privacy higher than the inalienable right of corporations to make money. Sorry for that.
Is it also against the law to record what customers come in the door of your brick and mortar store in Germany?
Depends. It is illegal to store their name, home address, passport number and blood type just because they wanted to shop at your place, yes.
And rightly so. You do business under the law of the land, so the law of the land tells you how you can do it. If you don't like it, you can shove off to some place in the middle of Africa where they don't have laws.
An unavoidable limitation is that the mask itself is static, meaning that new shapes cannot be created dynamically. The technology only allows controlling whether the shapes pop in, pop out, or remain flat.
That makes it useless for all but a few uncommon use cases. But it may be the beginning of something, maybe another team will come up on a way to create a programmable mask.
Why would I want a netbook, free or not? You have to have demand first before you think of price, and even at price 0, demand is not infinite (you've got to carry the thing home, find a place to stash it, etc. - there are costs involved in addition to the price).
So no. Even for free, I wouldn't have a use for it. The whole netbook thing is pointless anyways and will soon blow over.
No, seriously, they post crap like that on the Internet?
This is a comparison of a finished product that is shipping today, against a number of prototypes, none of which you can buy anywhere and most of which you will never be able to buy. Most importantly, none of which are finished and ready for use. We're all living in the tech world. We've all seen at least a hundred videos of prototypes that we were really looking forward to - and the final product either never arrived or wasn't half as good as the demo had led us believe.
Make a comparison when they're both shipping. Everything else is dumb, and creating false expectations.
Glad to see some celebrities finally appreciating Gibson's work.
I mean - according to Wikipedia, roughly half of all famous people are porn stars, if you go by pagecount. There's something about that I haven't yet found words for.
Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing, people are going to change there.
The interesting question is: Are people going to change search engine - or news site?
Since most news sites these days essentially publish press releases and agency reports verbatim, there isn't much difference between them anyways. I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't even notice. My vote is that they'll stay with the search engine and just read the same news story at a different news site.
I'm pretty sure that Murdoch will hate M$ for this step. No, I'm serious.
He's in the publishing industry. In other words: Perception and stories are his trade. The whole "Google is stealing from us" angle is an excellent story and contains a number of great opportunities to profit (from the government if you threaten loss of jobs, from Google if you threaten lawsuits, etc.) - but what M$ is doing is essentially calling his bluff.
Now he'll either have to go along with it, and de-index his sites, which will result in page views coming down crashing, or have everyone and his dog dig out the old stories and say "wasn't so bad after all, was it, old liar?".
He's probably already busy trying to find a way out without loss of face.
I have not seen ANY studies that suggest that OCCASIONAL exposure to second hand smoke is a hazard.
I just spent 20 seconds with Google and found several. Why do you post bullshit assumptions and expect others to invest their time and energy to set you right?
from the conclusions: "Consequently, this study supports the hypothesis that even occasional secondhand smoke increases the risk of developing acute coronary syndromes"
I forgot how that dialectic trick is called, but you did notice that you jumped from one case to a general conclusion there, didn't you?
Maybe he does not hurt anybody but himself, but the vast majority of smokers do. They care nothing for people around them and expect "tolerance" from everyone who they poison.
And that is why some of us are obsessed with controlling their actions. They hurt us. All we want for them is to stop. I would instantly sign an agreement saying that I may never again say a bad word about smokers if in return all smokers promise to never smoke where they do not have explicit permission from everyone who will get a part of their smoke.
Nobody forced me to visit that bar. Nobody forced the employees to work there.
The lack of alternatives does.
For most people, the costs of not going to bars are higher than the costs of accepting the smoke. Unfortunately, most only consider the nastiness of the smoke, the smell and irritation, not the health costs (which are largely invisible, due to their long terms).
If you want to seriously go this route, you'd have to support legislation that allows bars to be smoking or non-smoking bars, as long as a balance between both exists. Only when there is really choice can you see how people would act if there were choice.
Why not make a one-year experiment? Sign up all the bars in the town to either participate or be subject to a total smoking ban. Those who participate get to draw from a lottery. Half of the tickets say "non-smoking bar", the other "smoking bar". Then let the market play out its magic.
I'm very sure we would be in for a surprise. To the best of my knowledge all the "all the bars would go bancrupt" claims have been traced to tobacco company lobbyists. What evidence exists from countries that did introduce a total smoking ban all indicates that it's bullshit from start to finish. Sure, bars go bancrupt. Bars go bancrupt all the time. But if you run the numbers over a large area and large time, there's no difference between before and after the smoking ban.
municipalities now that are considering banning smoking outdoors. WTF is wrong with that picture?
The fact that most smokers defined anything that has a line-of-sight to the sky as "outdoors", including tunnels, train stations, bus shelters and the entrances and exits to all buildings where smoking is banned inside. With 20-30 smokers standing right in front of the entrance, you could cut the air into handy blocks of smoke if you wanted to bring them to a lab to analyze the amount of poison it contains.
"outdoors" does not magically make smoke disappear. It is all a function of smoke volume to air volume. The air volume outdoors is considerably larger than indoors, which is why it's a fairly good rule-of-thumb, but the equation still applies, and taking into account wind, nearby walls, etc. you find that in many "outdoor" locations the actual available air volume is not much higher than in, say, a large room indoors.
If smoking is as dangerous as they claim it is, people 50+ would be dying from lung problems and other smoking related problems in droves - but they're not.
(quote from there: "Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.")
A Google search will quickly show you that you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
Welding is also legal, but if you applied a welding torch to your PC, I'm quite certain that your manufacturer declare the warranty void.
On the other hand, threatening to kill the president is apparently illegal (at least in the US, and if it isn't, just hang in there, that's not the point). But if you sent such a mail with your computer, and later turned it in for repairs because something broke, I'm sure they wouldn't say it's not under warrenty.
So, both angles tested, we arrive at the conclusing that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of whatever it is you do with or around your computer.
Why, I wonder, is it that ever since the big tobacco company lawsuit brought down their house of lies, all the studies published about passive smoking and secondary effects are all in the "it's even worse than we thought" and never in the "it's not as bad as recent studies have indicated" category?
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no unregulated chemical substance in the world that is more poisonous than tobacco smoke. Everything that's worse (and a lot of stuff that's not as bad) fall under some laws, restrictions or other regulations. Especially in the workplace.
See, this is yet another example of where the logic of singling out one stupid little thing while ignoring 10 million others somehow makes sense.
It does.
You can not handle 10 million things. Your brain simply doesn't have the computing capacity to do so. And neither does our lawmaking process, company business process design processes (yeah, I know...) or practically everything else in our world.
But we can handle 1 thing. And if you ever want to take care of the 10 million, you need to start with one of them. Most of the disagreement in the world is simply about which one.
Oh, the poor smokers. They only want to be left alone and for the rest of the world to completely ignore that they are filling the air around them with poisonous gas. This is a crusade, I tell you! Everyone has the right to poison his environment as he sees hit, and the right that his environment totally ignores that! The oppression must end! Free poison for everyone!
I applaud Apple for standing up for their employees. I don't know what kind of internal lobbying it took, and for how long, but it is a great step forward for smokers to get some feedback on what they do to the world around them. As adults, you should take the consequences of your actions, and take them like a man instead of like a crybaby.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you fill me in ? Are you saying that you can't bring deleted articles back from the dead ?
Correct.
If so, what is the problem?
When an admin clicks the "delete" button, the page gets deleted. That doesn't mean replaced by an empty text, it is actually purged from the database, including all its history.
If not, that's a real problem with the software or policy.
I've been saying that for years.
An aside, but I thought Wikipedia stored every version of every page. When a page gets "deleted," it doesn't disappear forever, does it? It just stops showing up in head. Like a source code revision control system.
Wrong. When it gets deleted, it is gone, and the entire history is deleted as well.
Dig now why so many people hate page deletes? It destroys the whole Wiki aspect. In a true Wiki, delete is reserved for mistakes.
You forgot: Seeing the law as the steaming pile of bullshit it is and taking your business out of Germany.
No, I didn't forget that. I initially said "If you do business under the law of the land..."
This is just a plot for internet lawyers (Gravenreuths) to extort money out of people.
Oh dear, now you're mixing things up a lot. Gravenreuth has been thrown out of the picture years ago. By the same government you accuse of cooperating with him.
No, the people you want to look at are called Ursula von der Leyen (minister for families, she invented the "stop" sign censorship, which is why her nickname is Zensursula (censor-sula) and Wolfgang Schäuble, who used to be the minister for the interior, and who many reputable sources claim is very likely suffering from PTSD after an assassination attempt on him many years ago that left him crippled in a wheelchair. His medical records are sealed by the government.
And yes, the government doesn't like privacy very much. However, we also have courts to watch out for us, just like you do, and they are very influential. A lot of bad laws get thrown out or modified by the high courts.
One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.
The keyword being them - not necessarily the project.
There are many discussions in dozens of blogs about what the benefit for the Wikipedia "inner circle" is. Most of it isn't very friendly. Much of it sounds right nevertheless.
Exactly the reasons I left a long time ago. Glad to see others are finally doing the same, maybe the Wikipedia leadership will wake up.
"Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again," adds Ortega."
Been there, done that. You've contributed to improve an article, a dozen people have worked on it. Then a fucktard comes along and nominates it for deletion because of lack of "notability". Delete discussion goes on, clear consensus on "keep".
Two months pass. Article gets improved further. Next fucktard comes along, delete nomination. Discussion, with links to the first one, consensus arrives at "keep" again.
Winter holidays. The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time. This time, vocal people are away or just tired of it all. Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.
So you treat people like shit, destroy the result of their volunteer work, and then you're surprised they're leaving? You've gotta be kidding me.
Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.
Only if you believe that a company the size of Sun can disappear in a puff of smoke. :-)
Sure, Sun would probably go bancrupt. The profitable parts (and some non-profitable, but believed to be profitable or able to be made profitable) would be sold off. A bunch of employees would start their own "Sun 2". Consulting firms would step in to take over maintainance contracts.
Interesting stuff happens when the old dog leaves the barn, you know?
Maybe the law of the land is bullshit? Maybe there is another alternative to "accepting all existing and planned laws" than living in Africa?
Yes, there is. In fact, there are several, among them are elections, writing to your representative, setting up a lobby group. Whining on /. isn't one of them.
Oh, wait, all that already happened. The law didn't fall from the heavens. We Germans sometimes value privacy higher than the inalienable right of corporations to make money. Sorry for that.
Is it also against the law to record what customers come in the door of your brick and mortar store in Germany?
Depends. It is illegal to store their name, home address, passport number and blood type just because they wanted to shop at your place, yes.
And rightly so. You do business under the law of the land, so the law of the land tells you how you can do it. If you don't like it, you can shove off to some place in the middle of Africa where they don't have laws.
An unavoidable limitation is that the mask itself is static, meaning that new shapes cannot be created dynamically. The technology only allows controlling whether the shapes pop in, pop out, or remain flat.
That makes it useless for all but a few uncommon use cases. But it may be the beginning of something, maybe another team will come up on a way to create a programmable mask.
Why would I want a netbook, free or not? You have to have demand first before you think of price, and even at price 0, demand is not infinite (you've got to carry the thing home, find a place to stash it, etc. - there are costs involved in addition to the price).
So no. Even for free, I wouldn't have a use for it. The whole netbook thing is pointless anyways and will soon blow over.
If I hadn't posted, I would've modded GP as "+1 Funny" :-)
No, seriously, they post crap like that on the Internet?
This is a comparison of a finished product that is shipping today, against a number of prototypes, none of which you can buy anywhere and most of which you will never be able to buy. Most importantly, none of which are finished and ready for use. We're all living in the tech world. We've all seen at least a hundred videos of prototypes that we were really looking forward to - and the final product either never arrived or wasn't half as good as the demo had led us believe.
Make a comparison when they're both shipping. Everything else is dumb, and creating false expectations.
Glad to see some celebrities finally appreciating Gibson's work.
I mean - according to Wikipedia, roughly half of all famous people are porn stars, if you go by pagecount. There's something about that I haven't yet found words for.
Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing, people are going to change there.
The interesting question is: Are people going to change search engine - or news site?
Since most news sites these days essentially publish press releases and agency reports verbatim, there isn't much difference between them anyways. I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't even notice. My vote is that they'll stay with the search engine and just read the same news story at a different news site.
I'm pretty sure that Murdoch will hate M$ for this step. No, I'm serious.
He's in the publishing industry. In other words: Perception and stories are his trade. The whole "Google is stealing from us" angle is an excellent story and contains a number of great opportunities to profit (from the government if you threaten loss of jobs, from Google if you threaten lawsuits, etc.) - but what M$ is doing is essentially calling his bluff.
Now he'll either have to go along with it, and de-index his sites, which will result in page views coming down crashing, or have everyone and his dog dig out the old stories and say "wasn't so bad after all, was it, old liar?".
He's probably already busy trying to find a way out without loss of face.
I have not seen ANY studies that suggest that OCCASIONAL exposure to second hand smoke is a hazard.
I just spent 20 seconds with Google and found several. Why do you post bullshit assumptions and expect others to invest their time and energy to set you right?
So I'll post just one and invite you to do some research yourself:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/2/9
from the conclusions:
"Consequently, this study supports the hypothesis that even occasional secondhand smoke increases the risk of developing acute coronary syndromes"
I forgot how that dialectic trick is called, but you did notice that you jumped from one case to a general conclusion there, didn't you?
Maybe he does not hurt anybody but himself, but the vast majority of smokers do. They care nothing for people around them and expect "tolerance" from everyone who they poison.
And that is why some of us are obsessed with controlling their actions. They hurt us. All we want for them is to stop. I would instantly sign an agreement saying that I may never again say a bad word about smokers if in return all smokers promise to never smoke where they do not have explicit permission from everyone who will get a part of their smoke.
Nobody forced me to visit that bar. Nobody forced the employees to work there.
The lack of alternatives does.
For most people, the costs of not going to bars are higher than the costs of accepting the smoke. Unfortunately, most only consider the nastiness of the smoke, the smell and irritation, not the health costs (which are largely invisible, due to their long terms).
If you want to seriously go this route, you'd have to support legislation that allows bars to be smoking or non-smoking bars, as long as a balance between both exists. Only when there is really choice can you see how people would act if there were choice.
Why not make a one-year experiment? Sign up all the bars in the town to either participate or be subject to a total smoking ban. Those who participate get to draw from a lottery. Half of the tickets say "non-smoking bar", the other "smoking bar". Then let the market play out its magic.
I'm very sure we would be in for a surprise. To the best of my knowledge all the "all the bars would go bancrupt" claims have been traced to tobacco company lobbyists. What evidence exists from countries that did introduce a total smoking ban all indicates that it's bullshit from start to finish. Sure, bars go bancrupt. Bars go bancrupt all the time. But if you run the numbers over a large area and large time, there's no difference between before and after the smoking ban.
municipalities now that are considering banning smoking outdoors. WTF is wrong with that picture?
The fact that most smokers defined anything that has a line-of-sight to the sky as "outdoors", including tunnels, train stations, bus shelters and the entrances and exits to all buildings where smoking is banned inside. With 20-30 smokers standing right in front of the entrance, you could cut the air into handy blocks of smoke if you wanted to bring them to a lab to analyze the amount of poison it contains.
"outdoors" does not magically make smoke disappear. It is all a function of smoke volume to air volume. The air volume outdoors is considerably larger than indoors, which is why it's a fairly good rule-of-thumb, but the equation still applies, and taking into account wind, nearby walls, etc. you find that in many "outdoor" locations the actual available air volume is not much higher than in, say, a large room indoors.
If smoking is as dangerous as they claim it is, people 50+ would be dying from lung problems and other smoking related problems in droves - but they're not.
They are.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigarette_Smoking_and_Cancer.asp
(quote from there: "Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.")
A Google search will quickly show you that you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
Welding is also legal, but if you applied a welding torch to your PC, I'm quite certain that your manufacturer declare the warranty void.
On the other hand, threatening to kill the president is apparently illegal (at least in the US, and if it isn't, just hang in there, that's not the point). But if you sent such a mail with your computer, and later turned it in for repairs because something broke, I'm sure they wouldn't say it's not under warrenty.
So, both angles tested, we arrive at the conclusing that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of whatever it is you do with or around your computer.
The "biohazard" stuff is crap.
Really?
Why, I wonder, is it that ever since the big tobacco company lawsuit brought down their house of lies, all the studies published about passive smoking and secondary effects are all in the "it's even worse than we thought" and never in the "it's not as bad as recent studies have indicated" category?
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no unregulated chemical substance in the world that is more poisonous than tobacco smoke. Everything that's worse (and a lot of stuff that's not as bad) fall under some laws, restrictions or other regulations. Especially in the workplace.
See, this is yet another example of where the logic of singling out one stupid little thing while ignoring 10 million others somehow makes sense.
It does.
You can not handle 10 million things. Your brain simply doesn't have the computing capacity to do so. And neither does our lawmaking process, company business process design processes (yeah, I know...) or practically everything else in our world.
But we can handle 1 thing. And if you ever want to take care of the 10 million, you need to start with one of them. Most of the disagreement in the world is simply about which one.
That may clog up the fans, but it isn't poisonous to whoever has to clean it up. That's the difference.
Oh, the poor smokers. They only want to be left alone and for the rest of the world to completely ignore that they are filling the air around them with poisonous gas. This is a crusade, I tell you! Everyone has the right to poison his environment as he sees hit, and the right that his environment totally ignores that! The oppression must end! Free poison for everyone!
I applaud Apple for standing up for their employees. I don't know what kind of internal lobbying it took, and for how long, but it is a great step forward for smokers to get some feedback on what they do to the world around them. As adults, you should take the consequences of your actions, and take them like a man instead of like a crybaby.