...to the detriment of citizens, just as it has done to manufacturing and IT.
That's still protectionist. That scenario may be true in the short term. Long term, it will balance out. It also means more jobs stay at home rather than being farmed out to other countries -- which will happen regardless. Once equilibrium is reached, I think there will be a net benefit.
It is about people doing things the legal way (and stopping any other unlawful activities that cross the border).
No, it isn't. It's just theater. Here's a question... Prisons. Don't get much more secure than that do you? Are there drugs in prisons? Oh yes, there's plenty. So yeah... good luck stopping illegal traffic. Good luck with that indeed.
To have a well-defended border is not racism, it is border control.
Why don't we ask Israel how they're keeping their borders secure and take a few hints? Scale up the border and enforcement. Then actually treat the border as a no-go territory, where things and people get shot at or worse.
What you suggest doesn't sound like racism, but it sure sounds a lot like fascism. Worked well for East Berlin, your suggestion did -- oh wait, it didn't, it got 200+ innocent people killed.
Borders are senseless. It's just a pissing contest between greedy and greedier politicians, held over from the middle ages. It also removes local power from people, and devolves that power to unwieldy, bureaucratic, expensive, dysfunctional national governmental bodies. Living in Europe you cross a street in some places you are in a different country -- makes no logical fucking sense at all. Makes about as much sense as flags do.
Truth is the US economy would collapse overnight without immigrant labor (legal and otherwise). I find it astonishingly ironic that the most rabid protectionists are also the ones who are apparently pro-free-market. Make the next logical step. Free-market means free-market, hire the best workers regardless of their color of skin or supposed national identity. It will sort itself out, and balance itself.
Border just create wars, racism, fascism, and add to human unhappiness. Time to start working towards removing them all, and grow up.
The New York Post must be one of the worst designed websites on the Internet. It melts your eyes. I, for one, would certainly be willing to pay to avoid it.
Other than Joel Sherman, there's not one single thing in the NYPost that can't be found on hundreds of blogs.
Studies have shown wikipedia to be, in general, nearly as accurate as more established encyclopedias.
One study by Nature -- a bogus one -- which was published SIX years ago in 2003, claimed to show that wikipedia was the equivalent of Britannica in error rate. This, as mentioned, id a bogus study. If you know of others to cite and validate your claim, bring it on! If not, stop bringing up this disproven study as fact. It isn't. It is 100% pure wikiality.
You may be unaware of this study, which suggests that Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica have similar error rates. You may not like the conclusion, so feel free to do your own study.
Long proven to be a skewed small-scale study carried out by biased researchers. Let's not mention this study again, other than to ridicule it. Or as an example of wikipropaganda. It has no basis in truth -- much like most of wikipedia.
There is *so much* they could do to make explicit and transparent the edits, the timeliness of added information, and many other things - to handle issues like this - but they are not. Why?
Because Jimbo Wales is earning from it nicely the way it is, thank you very much.
Wikipedia is a silly idea that is just getting worse all the time.
The parent's post is great, mod it up. My take on this is that, of course wikipedia is a silly idea. If only people could treat it that way. As a silly idea, it's quite a good silly idea. If wikipedia was about having fun with knowledge it would be one hell of a lot more useful than it currently is.
Problem is, of course, the wikinazis. They don't think it's silly. They take it seriously (far too seriously) and fraudulently proclaim it to be something it isn't, and never will be -- a reliable source for information. This fraud, in turn, convinces the weak-minded to conclude it's reliable -- in this case the weak-minded are journalists, but it could be many other professions.
If people stopped taking Wikipedia seriously, then it would be a lot more useful. And a lot more fun too. It might even accidentally become reliable that way too.
Or is the purpose almost entirely to grab the existing users?
Why?
Oprah? Demi? Kutcher? A bunch of lame politicians pretending to be be cool? A bunch of fickle teenagers that will drop it in favor of the next thing by tomorrow lunchtime?
For Tweeple? Why would anyone want to pay money for that user base? Even in the heady days of the first dot.com bubble Twitter would be obviously vacuous, with no future.
Apple just don't need this waste of bandwidth. No-one does. Especially in the current economy. If anyone pays more than $50 for Twitter they need to fire their CFO, because he's overvalued it.
Just throw them all onto a website, the the google-bot crawl them, then just search for "Best entry". First result wins!
Right, so will that be the wikipedia entry, the wikianswers entry (same as wikipedia entry), or the link-farm entry (same as the wikipedia entry)? Those are the three that are in the top results from every search I perform.
Of course, it's a geek who is to blame for it all with his immoral software witchery. It couldn't possibly be the result of a large number of greedy, thieving scum, who were regulated by greedy, corrupt scum, and they in turn were regulated by a greedy, corrupt government.
The writing was on the Wall(street) for the subprime meltdown for a very long time before this software was written. It was obvious to anyone with Economics 101, a long time ago.
No one cares about a new search engine. Really, Google suits all my needs.
I use Google. I will likely continue to use Google for some time. However...
Competition is essential. It's good for us, good for Google too. Google, and every other search engine past and present, has failed to meet my needs. It's still to hard to find relevant articles without commerce-based noise and link-farm sites.
Image search, for example -- near worthless.
It's also annoying to find a wikipedia entry at the top of the page rank for almost everything on Google. This is skewed, and bears no relation to the individual rank (and thus merit) of the wikipedia page. I want facts, not what some guy thinks. I know where wikipedia is, if I wanted to search it, I would. I don't.
Google has much room for improvement. After 12 years of Google there's been little to no improvement in Search (in fact the opposite, Google-gaming has increased). Competition is the only solution to that. Bring it on, Wolfram. Bring it on anyone with new ideas in Search. We all need you (even Google).
I'm wondering if it's just a matter of time before Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome become better than Firefox
I use Firefox as my default browser too. I used to love it, now I tolerate it. Were adblock and flashblock available for Safari or Chrome (and I believe this is in development for Chrome), and were Chrome available as a Mac version, I would stop using Firefox overnight. Truth is as a basic browser these two are better already, as is IE.
Firefox is dangling by a hair on my machines. It is entirely their own fault. They have ignored fundamental problems with the browser since version 1.0, and spent far too much time developing "features" that should have been add-ons. It's never really worked well on a Mac either. There seems to be a lot of Netscape influence in Mozilla, this is exactly how Netscape failed
If Firefox 4.0 isn't multi-threaded and significantly stripped down, you can pretty much kiss it goodbye. This is a terrible shame. I want to continue to support it, however the Mozilla team is shooting itself in the foot far too much.
I'm all for stopping blind people from controlling vehicles. See enough of them on the roads in Ireland already;-)
Ah, sometimes it's hard to moderate comments. Having driven in Ireland, I've no idea whether this is "funny", "informative" or "insightful". We need more options really... and probably more opticians too.
Hard to detect in an academic paper, but easy to find on the web. Go to almost any Wikipedia article and you'll find it right there in front of you. Especially any article on a movie -- almost are are ripped directly from imdb.
Imagine Google, Facebook and Twitter 10 years from now.
I'd say there's a good chance Google will still be around in 10 years. I'd say there's very little chance Facebook is. And I'd say there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Twitter is around in 5 years, never mind 10.
It has dropped significantly, but it's far, far, far from zero. And most of those entrants into the market are only able to do so through subscription. The core business remains both free to the end user and hugely profitable. TiVo has a much bigger impact on revenue than new entrants to the market.
Any viable content requires specialist skills to produce. In the case of newspapers that means high quality journalists. That (as a million blogs prove conclusively), does restrict entry into the market. The weak will fail, sure. (just as 80% of cable channels would fail overnight without subscription revenue) But the model works for those who are able to produce popular quality content, and it works well.
1995 called. It wants its web business model back.
There's a huge gap somewhere in newspapers' thinking. (And actually, one in every content producers' thinking). People want free content. TV is the perfect example of a very successful business model where the prime channels are free of charge to the end user. Advertisers pay millions to advertise on TV. There is, absolutely, categorically, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no technological impediment to why this can't happen for online news, TV, movies, music, or whatever else.
The reason it doesn't happen is narrow-minded executives who do not think creatively enough, or try hard enough. Adapt or die. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
forty-two
That's still protectionist. That scenario may be true in the short term. Long term, it will balance out. It also means more jobs stay at home rather than being farmed out to other countries -- which will happen regardless. Once equilibrium is reached, I think there will be a net benefit.
No, it isn't. It's just theater. Here's a question... Prisons. Don't get much more secure than that do you? Are there drugs in prisons? Oh yes, there's plenty. So yeah... good luck stopping illegal traffic. Good luck with that indeed.
What you suggest doesn't sound like racism, but it sure sounds a lot like fascism. Worked well for East Berlin, your suggestion did -- oh wait, it didn't, it got 200+ innocent people killed.
Borders are senseless. It's just a pissing contest between greedy and greedier politicians, held over from the middle ages. It also removes local power from people, and devolves that power to unwieldy, bureaucratic, expensive, dysfunctional national governmental bodies. Living in Europe you cross a street in some places you are in a different country -- makes no logical fucking sense at all. Makes about as much sense as flags do.
Truth is the US economy would collapse overnight without immigrant labor (legal and otherwise). I find it astonishingly ironic that the most rabid protectionists are also the ones who are apparently pro-free-market. Make the next logical step. Free-market means free-market, hire the best workers regardless of their color of skin or supposed national identity. It will sort itself out, and balance itself.
Border just create wars, racism, fascism, and add to human unhappiness. Time to start working towards removing them all, and grow up.
Nikola Tesla destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognized the element of surprise.
(with apologies to Chuck Norris)
The New York Post must be one of the worst designed websites on the Internet. It melts your eyes. I, for one, would certainly be willing to pay to avoid it.
Other than Joel Sherman, there's not one single thing in the NYPost that can't be found on hundreds of blogs.
One study by Nature -- a bogus one -- which was published SIX years ago in 2003, claimed to show that wikipedia was the equivalent of Britannica in error rate. This, as mentioned, id a bogus study. If you know of others to cite and validate your claim, bring it on! If not, stop bringing up this disproven study as fact. It isn't. It is 100% pure wikiality.
Long proven to be a skewed small-scale study carried out by biased researchers. Let's not mention this study again, other than to ridicule it. Or as an example of wikipropaganda. It has no basis in truth -- much like most of wikipedia.
Because Jimbo Wales is earning from it nicely the way it is, thank you very much.
The parent's post is great, mod it up. My take on this is that, of course wikipedia is a silly idea. If only people could treat it that way. As a silly idea, it's quite a good silly idea. If wikipedia was about having fun with knowledge it would be one hell of a lot more useful than it currently is.
Problem is, of course, the wikinazis. They don't think it's silly. They take it seriously (far too seriously) and fraudulently proclaim it to be something it isn't, and never will be -- a reliable source for information. This fraud, in turn, convinces the weak-minded to conclude it's reliable -- in this case the weak-minded are journalists, but it could be many other professions.
If people stopped taking Wikipedia seriously, then it would be a lot more useful. And a lot more fun too. It might even accidentally become reliable that way too.
So which is it? Neither. It's viral marketing piggy-backing on the hype surrounding the new ST movie. No news here. Nothing to see.
I'd like to meet the person that coined the word "twitterverse". And hurt them. A lot.
Considering its already been ascertained by Nielsen that Twitter is losing 70% of its userbase after the first month.
It's quite simple: The Emperor is stark naked.
There's nothing to buy. The userbase is next to non-existent -- or will be soon enough.
Why?
Oprah? Demi? Kutcher? A bunch of lame politicians pretending to be be cool? A bunch of fickle teenagers that will drop it in favor of the next thing by tomorrow lunchtime?
For Tweeple? Why would anyone want to pay money for that user base? Even in the heady days of the first dot.com bubble Twitter would be obviously vacuous, with no future.
Apple just don't need this waste of bandwidth. No-one does. Especially in the current economy. If anyone pays more than $50 for Twitter they need to fire their CFO, because he's overvalued it.
Right, so will that be the wikipedia entry, the wikianswers entry (same as wikipedia entry), or the link-farm entry (same as the wikipedia entry)? Those are the three that are in the top results from every search I perform.
Can you say scapegoat?
Of course, it's a geek who is to blame for it all with his immoral software witchery. It couldn't possibly be the result of a large number of greedy, thieving scum, who were regulated by greedy, corrupt scum, and they in turn were regulated by a greedy, corrupt government.
The writing was on the Wall(street) for the subprime meltdown for a very long time before this software was written. It was obvious to anyone with Economics 101, a long time ago.
I use Google. I will likely continue to use Google for some time. However...
Competition is essential. It's good for us, good for Google too. Google, and every other search engine past and present, has failed to meet my needs. It's still to hard to find relevant articles without commerce-based noise and link-farm sites.
Image search, for example -- near worthless.
It's also annoying to find a wikipedia entry at the top of the page rank for almost everything on Google. This is skewed, and bears no relation to the individual rank (and thus merit) of the wikipedia page. I want facts, not what some guy thinks. I know where wikipedia is, if I wanted to search it, I would. I don't.
Google has much room for improvement. After 12 years of Google there's been little to no improvement in Search (in fact the opposite, Google-gaming has increased). Competition is the only solution to that. Bring it on, Wolfram. Bring it on anyone with new ideas in Search. We all need you (even Google).
I use Firefox as my default browser too. I used to love it, now I tolerate it. Were adblock and flashblock available for Safari or Chrome (and I believe this is in development for Chrome), and were Chrome available as a Mac version, I would stop using Firefox overnight. Truth is as a basic browser these two are better already, as is IE.
Firefox is dangling by a hair on my machines. It is entirely their own fault. They have ignored fundamental problems with the browser since version 1.0, and spent far too much time developing "features" that should have been add-ons. It's never really worked well on a Mac either. There seems to be a lot of Netscape influence in Mozilla, this is exactly how Netscape failed
If Firefox 4.0 isn't multi-threaded and significantly stripped down, you can pretty much kiss it goodbye. This is a terrible shame. I want to continue to support it, however the Mozilla team is shooting itself in the foot far too much.
Premature ejaculation porn? A whole new untapped market?
Ah, sometimes it's hard to moderate comments. Having driven in Ireland, I've no idea whether this is "funny", "informative" or "insightful". We need more options really... and probably more opticians too.
Hard to detect in an academic paper, but easy to find on the web. Go to almost any Wikipedia article and you'll find it right there in front of you. Especially any article on a movie -- almost are are ripped directly from imdb.
I'd say there's a good chance Google will still be around in 10 years. I'd say there's very little chance Facebook is. And I'd say there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Twitter is around in 5 years, never mind 10.
It has dropped significantly, but it's far, far, far from zero. And most of those entrants into the market are only able to do so through subscription. The core business remains both free to the end user and hugely profitable. TiVo has a much bigger impact on revenue than new entrants to the market.
Any viable content requires specialist skills to produce. In the case of newspapers that means high quality journalists. That (as a million blogs prove conclusively), does restrict entry into the market. The weak will fail, sure. (just as 80% of cable channels would fail overnight without subscription revenue) But the model works for those who are able to produce popular quality content, and it works well.
1995 called. It wants its web business model back.
There's a huge gap somewhere in newspapers' thinking. (And actually, one in every content producers' thinking). People want free content. TV is the perfect example of a very successful business model where the prime channels are free of charge to the end user. Advertisers pay millions to advertise on TV. There is, absolutely, categorically, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no technological impediment to why this can't happen for online news, TV, movies, music, or whatever else.
The reason it doesn't happen is narrow-minded executives who do not think creatively enough, or try hard enough. Adapt or die. End of story.
Penguinator... So when is Judgement Day?