What is, actually, the average power draw of a home in Scotland?
Fairly low compared to most of Northern Europe and North America. Scotland gets the Gulf stream in the winter, it's rarely below 0 degree Celsius, and it's never hot enough in Summer (that's a Tuesday in July) to warrant air conditioning. It has a very mild climate compared with most of the Northern Latitudes (though this doesn't stop Scots moaning about the weather, but most never live anywhere else to realize how tame the climate really is.)
Large numbers of homes in Glasgow also get their electricity by stealing it from street lighting, and are usually too drunk to notice the temperature. But that's another story...
So, I guess Whisky has always provided energy to many Scots!
It's easy to see how this type of legislation gets in place. People like Lord Snape and Lord Moonie are obviously taking backhanders to serve their master, Gordemort.
When you look at what happened in France yesterday, the riots, the marches, the protests on a large scale, it's so sad that the British public aren't willing to do the same thing. The sooner the Brown-shirt Regime is toppled, the better.
Of course none of this legislation is really about music or movies, it's about further justifying Hadrian's Firewall, and ironically duping the UK taxpayers into willingly paying for their own prison. I'm sure the Musikpolitzei that will be formed by this legislation won't restrict their activities to entertainment files.
What you describe, the failure of your search terms to find what you are looking for, simply proves that Search does not work as well as it should. It doesn't, in any way, validate Wikipedia. It merely shows the limitations of Google, being why Google needs competition.
What really makes wikipedia great is the fact that anyone can contribute
The truth is that not "anyone can contribute". It's never been true. They've long had the policy of blocking IP addresses. Jimbo Wales even decided to block and entire country's IP block one time. Truth in advertising, someone should really sue them -- it is NOT the encyclopedia anyone can edit. No truth in that whatsoever. Anyone can edit -- provided the admins approve of you. If they don't, you can't -- without explanation, definition, nor recourse.
You are absolutely correct. If wikipedia was fun, there would be no problem. Put a disclaimer at the top of the page, saying you use this info at your own risk. It would be a happy useful place. You can have filters to cut out the genuine spam and "vandalism" (as opposed to the manipulative definition of "vandalism that the wikinazis use -- like Bush used "terrorist" or tabloids use "pedophiles" -- basically to justify doing anything they want)
Wikipedia used to be more like that. Then... they started taking themselves seriously. It is -- after all -- little more than an indulgence in vanity and power. Then came the drives for quality, a new regime with "citation needed" everywhere and other such tools of fascism.
The problem with your idea is, as good as it is, is that Jimbo can't make any money with a Wikipedia site that's just a fun playground. And lets be very, very clear, all the noble philosophy that the wikipedians like to spout -- all hot air. It's about money, power and vanity. Jimbo sells wikipedia info to third parties. He can't do that if it was just some kid writing something that he though might help people, can he? That is what this is all really about.
It's about money. Sure, there's a whole Wikipedia non-profit construct built around the real core business. You're not supposed to notice that. You see the noble slogans, and the "anyone can edit" etc, and it all feels inclusive and socialist and fuzzy.
Meanwhile... authors' contributions are being sold off for hard cash. Fiscally, legally, not exactly by Wikipedia per se, but in reality, that's just splitting hairs.
Where will you go once the vandals are editing Britannica?
Define vandal. Go on. The wikinazi's never have. It seems to mean anything that Jimbo wouldn't like, or defies the cabal, as well as deliberately inaccurate info, or blatant spam.
Rosa Parks, Thoreau, or anyone making legitimate protest would be a vandals in the eyes of the wikinazis -- and in that, they are no different from the real book burning Nazis of the 1930s.
Go ahead and define vandal... that's something the wikinazi's have never had the guts, nor honesty, to do.
... am waiting for a Chrome checkbox in the toolbar that automatically removes all the wikipedia entries from a google search.
YES PLEASE!!!
Wikipedia is what it is. It's flaws have been discussed here too many times to go over them again. However, Google misrepresents the value of Wikipedia, and this is a real problem. There are many alternative online encyclopedias. There are many, many, many better and accurate independent sites for any piece of information you are trying to find out about. However, Google's skewed page ranking of Wikipedia steals traffic away from those sites. Goolge rates the site, not the individual pages. While some wikipedia pages may be good, many are not. It's wholly unfair, and in some cases even dangerous that a wikipedia page is ranked higher than an accredited, accurate and comprehensive page on another site.
Google needs to do a much better job of ranking wikipedia pages, what they have now is harming many better sites, unfairly. This reflects very badly on Google, it makes their search algorithms look inadequate.
Why bother with SEO? Just get your URL or product on a wikipedia page. It's what many people already do -- free, highly effective SEO! Your product or company or brand will be right at the top of the results. Easy and quick, and if you form a cabal to keep it there, it's permanent too!
It's not Wikipedia that needs more competition, there's plenty of it out there -- it's Google. Indeed, you could argue a case for the fact that, if search worked better, there would be no need for online encyclopedias at all.
Sure corporations do this. And not just US ones. And not just corporations, many non-profit organizations also benefit from that status to maximize their revenue.
Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Mozilla Foundation, Wikipedia and many, more more are just flying non-profit "flags of convenience" to avoid paying taxes on their commercial operations arms.
The Tax system is deeply flawed, and since it benefits the rich, powerful, and those who aspire to be, it's not going to change any time before Hell freezes over.
That's a good post. The problem with a lot of these technologies is that, although there is a genuine use for them, the true user base is far lower than the actual number of registered users.
The thing that is particularly annoying about them, is that the people who created them want to create as much buzz as possible and sellout before they go out of fashion -- and they all DO go out of fashion, because the majority of users are only using them since all they friends are, only to move on to the next thing when that becomes a la mode. If only the companies buying these startups would just realize there's very little long-term value in them, we might be spared a great deal of irritation.
Now that the majority of teenagers, idiots, scammers and viral marketers have moved on from myspace, it's a very useful tool for promoting your work if you are an artist. Perhaps something similar will happen to facebook and twitter (although personally I can see no redeeming value in twitter whatsoever)
Twitter has the World's most obnoxious marketing department. It is thrust in your face at every turn. Which only leaves me with the conclusion that, if you HAVE to oversell something that much, then there's no substance there. The emperor is, in fact, stark naked. I sincerely wish them every failure.
Nah, half (probably more it seems) of the videos on Youtube are not really videos. They are slideshows of pics of celebrities set to the favorite song of their creator. Invariably, also tag-spammed into oblivion.
While I remain opposed to censorship, and think the RIAA are pissing into the wind with this, the one possible good thing is that it may result in less of these irritating, spamming, slideshow compilations. Ken Burns has a lot to answer for.
True, but the average customer might never know or figure out that it was the ISP that sold them out.
The ISP does have a duty to protect the privacy of a customer, I think most people know that it's hard to identify anyone without the ISP coughing up data -- legally or otherwise. Anyway, I don't think that matters. My guess is that the first act of anyone who is accused of file sharing, is to change their ISP, regardless of who found out about them, or sold them out. It only makes sense to do so. Either way, the ISP loses. And rightly so, they should not be giving up data without a solid court warrant to anyone, for any reason.
Any time I want to learn about something, it's the first place I go.
I sincerely hope it's not the last place you go. The "facts" you get from wikipedia won't teach you much. (Unless you are a psycholgist studying how power can warp some people on the internet, or an accountant studying Jimbo Wales creative expense accounting. (I noticed after their last scrounge for cash, there was a big thank you from Jimmy Wales banner -- now, that was ironically funny)).
Here's a test. Pick a subject that you are expert in, or even have a good passing knowledge of -- any subject, pick a few even. Go to the wikipedia page on that topic, and you will find inconsistencies, inaccuracies, conjecture, missing information and sometimes downright lies.
Now, tell me what you think you are learning? If any page on a subject you know about is flawed, what possible merit is a page on a subject you don't know about? All you will learn is flawed info.
Technology can help illustrate a good story, of course.
However, the story is the key. What we need much more of, what the real savior of newspapers will be, it hard-hitting, in-depth investigations, and scoops. This worked for Hearst, among others. And the World really needs critical, trained, intelligent people examining what our corporations, our governments and their agents are up to, now more than ever in history.
Any blogger can paraphrase an AP feed, it doesn't take brains. This is what newspapers have been concentrating on in the past few years, while ignoring actual journalism.
Also, there's plenty examples of how technology is misused in TV media. Bugs, hyperbole-laced graphics, and skewed graphs. Let's not replicate that either. Let's not see powerpoint presentation news. By all means illustrate the facts, but make sure you have the facts too.
For goodness sake, the majority of comments I read about Win 7 are almost overwhelmingly positive. Why must Slashdot continue to moan when Microsoft appear to have learnt from their mistakes with Vista? It's fucking annoying.
It's not Slashdot, it's an article on Ars Technica. Secondly, Vista had overwhelming positive reviews when it was released too. And the only conclusion, in hindsight, that can be drawn from that, is that Microsoft has a lot of shills, and will pay a lot of money to get good publicity -- because those Vista reviews were dead wrong, and we all know it now.
Windows 7 has had many good reviews. Why on Earth should anyone trust any review after the Vista PR experience?
So... the summary is basically saying that the problems everyone complained about with Vista, seem to be basically still there with Windows 7?
Er... this may seem like a stupid question, but what did they actually improve -- if not the things people were complaining about? Windows 7 beta seems to have had favorable reviews, so I wonder what people are basing that on, after reading this summary. (though, I note that Vista had favorable reviews on its launch too. It was just when reality bit that the knives came out. Shillery will only get you so far).
Not that I really care, since I've never used Vista and I won't be using Windows 7. XP still works fine for the one Windows box I have, and after any SP3 a Microsoft product is as good as it gets.
I think Big Bang Theory does a good job of science jokes.
It does, I agree. It has great scripts and a talented cast. I just wish they could move away from the multi-camera sitcom format to a single camera show on location, without the studio audience. It would be ten times more funny in a drier, less mass-appeal format.
"Now, if the various governments could/would authorize their law enforcement agencies to use this method..."
That is the worst idea I have heard all week.
No Kidding! The problem with such laws (any laws) in most countries, is that they are open to interpretation. This is why we have courts. Which means, that allowing any government agency the right to access 3rd party computers for any reason sets a very, very dangerous precedent which can be exploited by the more fascist politicians in the world.
We've already seen the UK Governing Regime try to find ways of accessing the public's computers whenever they see fit, and without any court warrant. There is no sane way to allow this kind of exception, without running the risk of opening the door to further Government inspection of your computer, if they decide to exploit precedent.
Be very careful with vigilantism. Especially when a government agency is the vigilante. It WILL be exploited for other reasons.
Google would lose nothing from allowing adblock. In fact, they would only gain from it.
The only reason to block ads for most people is because they are distracting. This means flash, animated gifs, and rotating scripts. If ads didn't move, there would be a much reduced need to block them. Personally I just can't read a page if something is blinking in the corner. Prior to adblock, I'd have to put pieces of paper over parts of the screen, or scroll it to hide ads. Advertisers have always lost me as customer by advertising in this way.
I don't, and I suspect most people don't, ever block text based ads. I've no problem with them. Thus Google's ads get through. Google understands that text based ads do not bug most people, hence it's always been their ideology to use them.
If adblocking of moving images is more widespread, then text based ads become the primary way of reaching customers. That's a win for everyone -- especially Google. (the only losers are low-life flash ad designers, whose unemployment is most welcome.)
One interesting thing about Beethoven that many may not know. As much as he is regarded as a genius, and very famous, there's still a lot of his music that's never been recorded. In fact, there's a lot that's still never been publicly performed. His entire work that's been recorded fits on about 60 cds, there's probably as much again that's never been publicly performed or recorded. This, I have always found astonishing.
Chaplin was a genius, and should never fade away. Everyone should watch "The Great Dictator." It's a must-see movie. Especially now -- since many of us in the West face darker days from more restrictive governments.
Just spy on your employees 24/7, and their friends, families.. datamine every movement they make and can them if they even think about looking sideways...
Are you perchance, a member of the UK Labour Party? Comrade Brown-shirt, is that you?
Slashdot Mirror
Fairly low compared to most of Northern Europe and North America. Scotland gets the Gulf stream in the winter, it's rarely below 0 degree Celsius, and it's never hot enough in Summer (that's a Tuesday in July) to warrant air conditioning. It has a very mild climate compared with most of the Northern Latitudes (though this doesn't stop Scots moaning about the weather, but most never live anywhere else to realize how tame the climate really is.)
Large numbers of homes in Glasgow also get their electricity by stealing it from street lighting, and are usually too drunk to notice the temperature. But that's another story...
So, I guess Whisky has always provided energy to many Scots!
It's easy to see how this type of legislation gets in place. People like Lord Snape and Lord Moonie are obviously taking backhanders to serve their master, Gordemort.
When you look at what happened in France yesterday, the riots, the marches, the protests on a large scale, it's so sad that the British public aren't willing to do the same thing. The sooner the Brown-shirt Regime is toppled, the better.
Of course none of this legislation is really about music or movies, it's about further justifying Hadrian's Firewall, and ironically duping the UK taxpayers into willingly paying for their own prison. I'm sure the Musikpolitzei that will be formed by this legislation won't restrict their activities to entertainment files.
What you describe, the failure of your search terms to find what you are looking for, simply proves that Search does not work as well as it should. It doesn't, in any way, validate Wikipedia. It merely shows the limitations of Google, being why Google needs competition.
The truth is that not "anyone can contribute". It's never been true. They've long had the policy of blocking IP addresses. Jimbo Wales even decided to block and entire country's IP block one time. Truth in advertising, someone should really sue them -- it is NOT the encyclopedia anyone can edit. No truth in that whatsoever. Anyone can edit -- provided the admins approve of you. If they don't, you can't -- without explanation, definition, nor recourse.
You are absolutely correct. If wikipedia was fun, there would be no problem. Put a disclaimer at the top of the page, saying you use this info at your own risk. It would be a happy useful place. You can have filters to cut out the genuine spam and "vandalism" (as opposed to the manipulative definition of "vandalism that the wikinazis use -- like Bush used "terrorist" or tabloids use "pedophiles" -- basically to justify doing anything they want)
Wikipedia used to be more like that. Then... they started taking themselves seriously. It is -- after all -- little more than an indulgence in vanity and power. Then came the drives for quality, a new regime with "citation needed" everywhere and other such tools of fascism.
The problem with your idea is, as good as it is, is that Jimbo can't make any money with a Wikipedia site that's just a fun playground. And lets be very, very clear, all the noble philosophy that the wikipedians like to spout -- all hot air. It's about money, power and vanity. Jimbo sells wikipedia info to third parties. He can't do that if it was just some kid writing something that he though might help people, can he? That is what this is all really about.
It's about money. Sure, there's a whole Wikipedia non-profit construct built around the real core business. You're not supposed to notice that. You see the noble slogans, and the "anyone can edit" etc, and it all feels inclusive and socialist and fuzzy.
Meanwhile... authors' contributions are being sold off for hard cash. Fiscally, legally, not exactly by Wikipedia per se, but in reality, that's just splitting hairs.
Define vandal. Go on. The wikinazi's never have. It seems to mean anything that Jimbo wouldn't like, or defies the cabal, as well as deliberately inaccurate info, or blatant spam.
Rosa Parks, Thoreau, or anyone making legitimate protest would be a vandals in the eyes of the wikinazis -- and in that, they are no different from the real book burning Nazis of the 1930s.
Go ahead and define vandal... that's something the wikinazi's have never had the guts, nor honesty, to do.
YES PLEASE!!!
Wikipedia is what it is. It's flaws have been discussed here too many times to go over them again. However, Google misrepresents the value of Wikipedia, and this is a real problem. There are many alternative online encyclopedias. There are many, many, many better and accurate independent sites for any piece of information you are trying to find out about. However, Google's skewed page ranking of Wikipedia steals traffic away from those sites. Goolge rates the site, not the individual pages. While some wikipedia pages may be good, many are not. It's wholly unfair, and in some cases even dangerous that a wikipedia page is ranked higher than an accredited, accurate and comprehensive page on another site.
Google needs to do a much better job of ranking wikipedia pages, what they have now is harming many better sites, unfairly. This reflects very badly on Google, it makes their search algorithms look inadequate.
Why bother with SEO? Just get your URL or product on a wikipedia page. It's what many people already do -- free, highly effective SEO! Your product or company or brand will be right at the top of the results. Easy and quick, and if you form a cabal to keep it there, it's permanent too!
It's not Wikipedia that needs more competition, there's plenty of it out there -- it's Google. Indeed, you could argue a case for the fact that, if search worked better, there would be no need for online encyclopedias at all.
It's fairly easy to see why the Zune failed.
1. A mammoth uphill struggle to beat the popular and well-established iPod (as well as many other competitors)
2. The use of DRM.
3. The use of the word "squirt." Which is easily associated with bodily functions.
4. It came in brown. Which made "squirt" all the more obnoxious.
5. The lock-up issue.
No-one will miss it...
Sure corporations do this. And not just US ones. And not just corporations, many non-profit organizations also benefit from that status to maximize their revenue.
Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Mozilla Foundation, Wikipedia and many, more more are just flying non-profit "flags of convenience" to avoid paying taxes on their commercial operations arms.
The Tax system is deeply flawed, and since it benefits the rich, powerful, and those who aspire to be, it's not going to change any time before Hell freezes over.
Pictures and bullet points. That's your way in. We all know management can't read.
That's a good post. The problem with a lot of these technologies is that, although there is a genuine use for them, the true user base is far lower than the actual number of registered users.
The thing that is particularly annoying about them, is that the people who created them want to create as much buzz as possible and sellout before they go out of fashion -- and they all DO go out of fashion, because the majority of users are only using them since all they friends are, only to move on to the next thing when that becomes a la mode. If only the companies buying these startups would just realize there's very little long-term value in them, we might be spared a great deal of irritation.
Myspace -> Facebook -> Twitter -> thenextbigthing.
Now that the majority of teenagers, idiots, scammers and viral marketers have moved on from myspace, it's a very useful tool for promoting your work if you are an artist. Perhaps something similar will happen to facebook and twitter (although personally I can see no redeeming value in twitter whatsoever)
Twitter has the World's most obnoxious marketing department. It is thrust in your face at every turn. Which only leaves me with the conclusion that, if you HAVE to oversell something that much, then there's no substance there. The emperor is, in fact, stark naked. I sincerely wish them every failure.
Hmmmm... if you demonstrate something with a viola, does that give you a vioila? I feel it should.
Nah, half (probably more it seems) of the videos on Youtube are not really videos. They are slideshows of pics of celebrities set to the favorite song of their creator. Invariably, also tag-spammed into oblivion.
While I remain opposed to censorship, and think the RIAA are pissing into the wind with this, the one possible good thing is that it may result in less of these irritating, spamming, slideshow compilations. Ken Burns has a lot to answer for.
The ISP does have a duty to protect the privacy of a customer, I think most people know that it's hard to identify anyone without the ISP coughing up data -- legally or otherwise. Anyway, I don't think that matters. My guess is that the first act of anyone who is accused of file sharing, is to change their ISP, regardless of who found out about them, or sold them out. It only makes sense to do so. Either way, the ISP loses. And rightly so, they should not be giving up data without a solid court warrant to anyone, for any reason.
I sincerely hope it's not the last place you go. The "facts" you get from wikipedia won't teach you much. (Unless you are a psycholgist studying how power can warp some people on the internet, or an accountant studying Jimbo Wales creative expense accounting. (I noticed after their last scrounge for cash, there was a big thank you from Jimmy Wales banner -- now, that was ironically funny)).
Here's a test. Pick a subject that you are expert in, or even have a good passing knowledge of -- any subject, pick a few even. Go to the wikipedia page on that topic, and you will find inconsistencies, inaccuracies, conjecture, missing information and sometimes downright lies.
Now, tell me what you think you are learning? If any page on a subject you know about is flawed, what possible merit is a page on a subject you don't know about? All you will learn is flawed info.
Technology can help illustrate a good story, of course.
However, the story is the key. What we need much more of, what the real savior of newspapers will be, it hard-hitting, in-depth investigations, and scoops. This worked for Hearst, among others. And the World really needs critical, trained, intelligent people examining what our corporations, our governments and their agents are up to, now more than ever in history.
Any blogger can paraphrase an AP feed, it doesn't take brains. This is what newspapers have been concentrating on in the past few years, while ignoring actual journalism.
Also, there's plenty examples of how technology is misused in TV media. Bugs, hyperbole-laced graphics, and skewed graphs. Let's not replicate that either. Let's not see powerpoint presentation news. By all means illustrate the facts, but make sure you have the facts too.
It's not Slashdot, it's an article on Ars Technica. Secondly, Vista had overwhelming positive reviews when it was released too. And the only conclusion, in hindsight, that can be drawn from that, is that Microsoft has a lot of shills, and will pay a lot of money to get good publicity -- because those Vista reviews were dead wrong, and we all know it now.
Windows 7 has had many good reviews. Why on Earth should anyone trust any review after the Vista PR experience?
So... the summary is basically saying that the problems everyone complained about with Vista, seem to be basically still there with Windows 7?
Er... this may seem like a stupid question, but what did they actually improve -- if not the things people were complaining about? Windows 7 beta seems to have had favorable reviews, so I wonder what people are basing that on, after reading this summary. (though, I note that Vista had favorable reviews on its launch too. It was just when reality bit that the knives came out. Shillery will only get you so far).
Not that I really care, since I've never used Vista and I won't be using Windows 7. XP still works fine for the one Windows box I have, and after any SP3 a Microsoft product is as good as it gets.
It does, I agree. It has great scripts and a talented cast. I just wish they could move away from the multi-camera sitcom format to a single camera show on location, without the studio audience. It would be ten times more funny in a drier, less mass-appeal format.
No Kidding! The problem with such laws (any laws) in most countries, is that they are open to interpretation. This is why we have courts. Which means, that allowing any government agency the right to access 3rd party computers for any reason sets a very, very dangerous precedent which can be exploited by the more fascist politicians in the world.
We've already seen the UK Governing Regime try to find ways of accessing the public's computers whenever they see fit, and without any court warrant. There is no sane way to allow this kind of exception, without running the risk of opening the door to further Government inspection of your computer, if they decide to exploit precedent.
Be very careful with vigilantism. Especially when a government agency is the vigilante. It WILL be exploited for other reasons.
Google would lose nothing from allowing adblock. In fact, they would only gain from it.
The only reason to block ads for most people is because they are distracting. This means flash, animated gifs, and rotating scripts. If ads didn't move, there would be a much reduced need to block them. Personally I just can't read a page if something is blinking in the corner. Prior to adblock, I'd have to put pieces of paper over parts of the screen, or scroll it to hide ads. Advertisers have always lost me as customer by advertising in this way.
I don't, and I suspect most people don't, ever block text based ads. I've no problem with them. Thus Google's ads get through. Google understands that text based ads do not bug most people, hence it's always been their ideology to use them.
If adblocking of moving images is more widespread, then text based ads become the primary way of reaching customers. That's a win for everyone -- especially Google. (the only losers are low-life flash ad designers, whose unemployment is most welcome.)
That is very true.
One interesting thing about Beethoven that many may not know. As much as he is regarded as a genius, and very famous, there's still a lot of his music that's never been recorded. In fact, there's a lot that's still never been publicly performed. His entire work that's been recorded fits on about 60 cds, there's probably as much again that's never been publicly performed or recorded. This, I have always found astonishing.
Chaplin was a genius, and should never fade away. Everyone should watch "The Great Dictator." It's a must-see movie. Especially now -- since many of us in the West face darker days from more restrictive governments.
Earthmate? What's an Earthmate? Is that like an Earth girl posing in the Proxima Centauri edition of Playboy?
... should have used low fat milk...
Are you perchance, a member of the UK Labour Party? Comrade Brown-shirt, is that you?