Only one problem w/ SPOT. The transmitter is simplex, it has no way of determining if a message has gotten thru to the orbiting network.
I've got a spot myself for when I go off the grid, and usually I only have an 80% message success rate. It's just not 100% positive confirmation that the message went thru.
As the owner of the first vandalism reverting bot in mainstream use - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tawkerbot2 I guess I have a bit of perspective on the whole problem.
Originally the bot was designed / created to auto revert one very specific type of vandalism, a user who would put a picture of spongebob squarepants into pages while blinking them (or squidward or some cartoon character) - that was pretty easy to get.
Next we went to stuff like full page blanking, ALL CAP LETTER UPDATES and additions of a tonne of bad words, based on common vandalism trends (ie, if a page had 0 profanity on it and someone added a few words it would be reverted, again, not too many false positives.
That basically caught the "dumb kid" type of vandalism, and it was amazing how much lower a percentage it caught of total edits when students went back to school.
The only problem, at the time, it was a resource pig. The bot was originally running on a P2 300MHz w/ a grand total of 256MB of RAM and the load got to be so high that we had to move it about 5 times.
It's interesting to note that at first, many many people were opposed to the idea of automated vandalism revision, it was almost a contest to revert stuff first - and the bot would win a vast majority of the time. However, as time went on, my inbox started getting rather full whenever I had a power outage, cat knocked the cord out of the box hosting it etc. Community reaction to bots doing the grunt work in vandalism really changed.
Anyways, just my 2c on it, and just for the heck of it to prove I'm actually the Tawker on wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATawker&action=historysubmit&diff=387163504&oldid=268687392
As owner of one of the first vandalism reverto bots out there (although pattern speaking, tawkerbot2 didn't do nearly as much as CB) the first take there was if you remove the perceived vandalism almost immediately people don't get any fun out of vandalizing and stop doing it.
There was massive opposition at the offset, but then, as volumes increased, people began to freak when the bot was non operational. Yes, it had false positives which needed to be dealt with, but if I recall correctly, statistically speaking, it was less than a 2% false positive rate - and this was on hundreds of thousands of edits.
Another great example would look at BC's STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC-STV) which I might add received 58% support but failed a poorly thought out 60% supermajority the Liberals wanted.
It's on the ballot again next May here, we need to get out make sure it happens. It's not perfect mind you, but a LOT better than first past the post.
I can't find Norman Waslh to undelete it. Are you sure it was deleted?
On another front... what was your IP. I can't track it down without knowing it in the first place.
We don't book burn - normal deletions (99.9% of them) are fully reversible - I can see all of the deleted edits.
Oversight - the act of removing data to a non selectable database table is done - but only for privacy reasons (ie, if we posted CmdrTaco's private cell, that'd get oversighted) as I'm sure we wouldn't like the calls.
Exactly. As one of the people who started the "bot vandal fighting" revolution on Wikipedia I must say, there is no way whatsoever we can tell if a removal of content is "good" or not (edit summaries help and they are taken into account when deciding to revert or not on most bots - similar to SpamAssassin's rules) - stats have shown 99% of the time, it's vandalism and hence the bots revert. Most bots do leave a pretty friendly warning - some even will tell you the exact rule that reverted you.
Overall, the site is better off with bots - there simply aren't enough humans to take care of it manually.
Well, if all worked properly, admins would simply block obvious vandalism and delete obvious spam links (no offense, but we can't have a separate article for every 7-11 location - there is a limit)
Why that is not happening, I do not know. Clashes of "new blood" and "old blood" have been interesting. We are seeing "wars" of people wanting to delete stuff and those wanting to restore stuff. Sometimes, it's damn handy to be able to browse Wikipedia with the "view deleted edits" button - you do get the other side of the story on that odd great article that someone decided to delete.
Most of the anti vandalism efforts are directed at kicking the obvious stuff, there is waay too much information out there for someone to check every fact. It's a problem without an easy solution, we can't write a fact checking bot and we don't have enough humans.
Go figure. Oh well, it'll make for interesting podcast discussion next week.
Yeah, I think it makes a big deal in the competence of people you get. I'm one of those $60.00 / hour personal consulting people and I get a fairly steady stream of people Geek Squad has screwed up on, there is no way you are going to get anyone competent for anything under $20 bucks an hour (at least where I live)
Well, I don't know about exact timing but there are 24 time zoes around the world. I strongly doubt that most diggers are school kids, digg is just another great link source.
You also seem to imply that many school age kids are posting junk, what is there to stop anyone else from posting junk. It's not just kids you know.
At least as I see it, I keep both digg's and shashdot's RSS feeds on my google homepage, and it seems to get me most of the news just fine.
Calling it a "National Security Risk" NASA should propose to buy out the ST franchise, keep production of ENT going at full tilt as material for the only people who seem to care about exploring fans.
Just another better use of taxpayer's money than the way in Iraq.
Well, our goverment just increased the film tax credit, so hopefully that will be enough to bring the NX-01 to a few blocks from me, which would simply be great.
Vancouver has been pretty much every city on the face of this earth, it's time for us to be the NX-01 too.
So, engage at warp 5, the nx-01 will hopefully be coming to Vancouver. Do you think Vancouver Intl has shuttlepod facilities?
I don't get what people love about "skype." I tried it, and the voice quality is 10 times worse than my cell on one of it's worst days, it's simply not usable.
Motorola should be working on SIP compliant products, for the majority of professional VoIP services that have the capacity, and bandwidth to provide a QOS assured call. If a user discovers "skype" they are robbing themselves of the true experience of a proper VoIP call.
So, Motorola should focus on products that are standards compliant, rather than attempting to support an useless product.
Slashdot Mirror
Only one problem w/ SPOT. The transmitter is simplex, it has no way of determining if a message has gotten thru to the orbiting network. I've got a spot myself for when I go off the grid, and usually I only have an 80% message success rate. It's just not 100% positive confirmation that the message went thru.
As the owner of the first vandalism reverting bot in mainstream use - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tawkerbot2 I guess I have a bit of perspective on the whole problem. Originally the bot was designed / created to auto revert one very specific type of vandalism, a user who would put a picture of spongebob squarepants into pages while blinking them (or squidward or some cartoon character) - that was pretty easy to get. Next we went to stuff like full page blanking, ALL CAP LETTER UPDATES and additions of a tonne of bad words, based on common vandalism trends (ie, if a page had 0 profanity on it and someone added a few words it would be reverted, again, not too many false positives. That basically caught the "dumb kid" type of vandalism, and it was amazing how much lower a percentage it caught of total edits when students went back to school. The only problem, at the time, it was a resource pig. The bot was originally running on a P2 300MHz w/ a grand total of 256MB of RAM and the load got to be so high that we had to move it about 5 times. It's interesting to note that at first, many many people were opposed to the idea of automated vandalism revision, it was almost a contest to revert stuff first - and the bot would win a vast majority of the time. However, as time went on, my inbox started getting rather full whenever I had a power outage, cat knocked the cord out of the box hosting it etc. Community reaction to bots doing the grunt work in vandalism really changed. Anyways, just my 2c on it, and just for the heck of it to prove I'm actually the Tawker on wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATawker&action=historysubmit&diff=387163504&oldid=268687392
As owner of one of the first vandalism reverto bots out there (although pattern speaking, tawkerbot2 didn't do nearly as much as CB) the first take there was if you remove the perceived vandalism almost immediately people don't get any fun out of vandalizing and stop doing it. There was massive opposition at the offset, but then, as volumes increased, people began to freak when the bot was non operational. Yes, it had false positives which needed to be dealt with, but if I recall correctly, statistically speaking, it was less than a 2% false positive rate - and this was on hundreds of thousands of edits.
Another great example would look at BC's STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC-STV) which I might add received 58% support but failed a poorly thought out 60% supermajority the Liberals wanted. It's on the ballot again next May here, we need to get out make sure it happens. It's not perfect mind you, but a LOT better than first past the post.
I can't find Norman Waslh to undelete it. Are you sure it was deleted? On another front... what was your IP. I can't track it down without knowing it in the first place.
We don't book burn - normal deletions (99.9% of them) are fully reversible - I can see all of the deleted edits.
Oversight - the act of removing data to a non selectable database table is done - but only for privacy reasons (ie, if we posted CmdrTaco's private cell, that'd get oversighted) as I'm sure we wouldn't like the calls.
Exactly. As one of the people who started the "bot vandal fighting" revolution on Wikipedia I must say, there is no way whatsoever we can tell if a removal of content is "good" or not (edit summaries help and they are taken into account when deciding to revert or not on most bots - similar to SpamAssassin's rules) - stats have shown 99% of the time, it's vandalism and hence the bots revert. Most bots do leave a pretty friendly warning - some even will tell you the exact rule that reverted you. Overall, the site is better off with bots - there simply aren't enough humans to take care of it manually.
Well, if all worked properly, admins would simply block obvious vandalism and delete obvious spam links (no offense, but we can't have a separate article for every 7-11 location - there is a limit)
c e-update/ and http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted- new-articles-in-wikipedia/ by Andrew Lih, a prominent WP admin does shed a little light on things and would be a useful read in light of things.
Why that is not happening, I do not know. Clashes of "new blood" and "old blood" have been interesting. We are seeing "wars" of people wanting to delete stuff and those wanting to restore stuff. Sometimes, it's damn handy to be able to browse Wikipedia with the "view deleted edits" button - you do get the other side of the story on that odd great article that someone decided to delete.
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/19/the-pown
Most of the anti vandalism efforts are directed at kicking the obvious stuff, there is waay too much information out there for someone to check every fact. It's a problem without an easy solution, we can't write a fact checking bot and we don't have enough humans. Go figure. Oh well, it'll make for interesting podcast discussion next week.
http://tawker.com/2006/08/01/i-blocked-stephen-col bert-on-wikipedia/ - I can't believe Slashdot left that one out... that's half the story :o
Yeah, I think it makes a big deal in the competence of people you get. I'm one of those $60.00 / hour personal consulting people and I get a fairly steady stream of people Geek Squad has screwed up on, there is no way you are going to get anyone competent for anything under $20 bucks an hour (at least where I live)
http://www.cbc.ca/vancouver/story/bc_octopus-sub20 060127.html?ref=rss - direct from the CBC - no msn filtering, and it includes the CBC video.
showed it to 50 friends, in near HD perfection! I only paid $12 for the movie channel, I must be stealing the information!!!!!!!
Well, I don't know about exact timing but there are 24 time zoes around the world. I strongly doubt that most diggers are school kids, digg is just another great link source. You also seem to imply that many school age kids are posting junk, what is there to stop anyone else from posting junk. It's not just kids you know. At least as I see it, I keep both digg's and shashdot's RSS feeds on my google homepage, and it seems to get me most of the news just fine.
Calling it a "National Security Risk" NASA should propose to buy out the ST franchise, keep production of ENT going at full tilt as material for the only people who seem to care about exploring fans. Just another better use of taxpayer's money than the way in Iraq.
Well, our goverment just increased the film tax credit, so hopefully that will be enough to bring the NX-01 to a few blocks from me, which would simply be great.
Vancouver has been pretty much every city on the face of this earth, it's time for us to be the NX-01 too.
So, engage at warp 5, the nx-01 will hopefully be coming to Vancouver. Do you think Vancouver Intl has shuttlepod facilities?
I don't get what people love about "skype." I tried it, and the voice quality is 10 times worse than my cell on one of it's worst days, it's simply not usable. Motorola should be working on SIP compliant products, for the majority of professional VoIP services that have the capacity, and bandwidth to provide a QOS assured call. If a user discovers "skype" they are robbing themselves of the true experience of a proper VoIP call. So, Motorola should focus on products that are standards compliant, rather than attempting to support an useless product.