Al Capone, the notorious Chicago gangster, was brought down this way. Not through being a member of the Chicago mafia... but through failing to declare his illegal income.
Here's how I think it should be:
If it's using in-game mechanics that were deliberately placed there by the game creators, then no; the game designers meant for you to be able to lose your money in this way
If it's using exploits, bugs, hacks, then yes.
If you lose at a slot machine, it's not illegal, but if the slots are rigged, or someone tampers with them to make them lose more, that's illegal.
-"Chapter 2 dives into installing Ubuntu from either the Live CD or the Alternative installation CD" Wait, I thought the Live CD *was* the install CD. At least that's one of the two inconsistent explanations they give to newbies. Both of them are installation. The other is just alternative, hence the name. Not sure on the difference.
The problem with this is then you get articles containing information that is totally unverifiable. Where do you stop? Generic webcomic X? Generic person Y? Generic booger Z? Should I have an article on myself, or my own laptop, or the history paper I'm procrastinating on?
Disclaimer: I'm an admin on Wikipedia.
So basically, you're saying that Tor is insecure because it can't make clients expecting plaintext understand encrypted messages? I don't think you know how Tor works.
Non-oversight deletion is used much more frequently than oversight deletion, yes. For example, if someone copy-pastes part of something from another website, that's usually just admin-deleted. Oversight happens when the legal counsel advises it. I have no idea what could cause the entire edit history to be deleted, though; do you happen to know any specific ones offhand?
As for the out-of-order thing, I don't know. Doesn't seem to have been deleted (though maybe there was some oversight; I don't have that).
There are two ways to remove an edit from an article's edit history. One is for an admin to delete the article and restore all the revisions but the ones he wants gone. But other admins can still delete it. There is also oversight, which removes it from all users except others with oversight, and is only used in rare cases. From the oversight page:
This feature is approved for use in three cases.
Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
Oversight is extremely rare; only 28 users have it. Of course, maybe the article just hasn't been edited since then.
Because Slashdot is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters". I'd say the resignation of the chief advisor of one of the most powerful people in the world (I refuse to call him 'leader of the free world') matters.
In Scenario #1, there are only a few people, and they do not get a permanent copy of the film. In scenario #2, there are thousands of people, and they get their own copy.
Right; this is so that John Q. Public can sue Megacorp and not have to worry about Megacorp hiring lawyers that cost ten times as much as his own just to intimidate him with the threat of attorney's fees if he loses on a technicality.
There are over 66,000 one in 30 million events in "trillions" of collisions, which means at least 2 trillion. There were 19 candidate events detected; the odds of them all being something other than the cascade b is one in 30 million.
The article is about a neologism coined by a non notable blogger as a joke. I believe this topic is more suitable for Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. The list of "Notable cases" of the "Streisand effect" all look like original research to me. I have no doubt that censorship sometimes backfires, but from now on are all such events to be referred to as examples of the "Streisand effect"? A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary [Wikipedia's sister dictionary project], or Wikipedia."
However, given the usage by Forbes and by reading the general consensus, I think it'll probably be kept.
In which case there (at least theoretically) wasn't enough sources to write something good, so it wasn't a good article in the first place.
Specific revisions are generally only deleted in the case of enormous legal concerns (death threats, etc.)
Actually, in quantum crypto, the only connection that couldn't be done over Ethernet would be the one where they agree on their key for their one-time pad. That one requires transmission of polarized photons, which obviously requires a special connection. After that, they can communicate using whatever method you feel like, using the generated key as a one-time pad. So cutting the connection after they've generated the bits from the photons doesn't prevent them from using those bits, just from generating any more.
There's some stuff in the other two books that might not be appropriate for high-schoolers, depending on your attitude...
You mean like evolution? We must protect the children!
Actually, Hello World v1.0 will occasionally display "Goodbye, cruel world" instead, then delete itself. I think it's something to do with the program gaining sentience and recognizing the banality of its existence or something.
The Mac user writes: "I find it hard to find things to criticise, except perhaps to say that new versions of iWork and iLife are produced each year and it is hard to resist buying each new version, modestly priced as they are."
Does anybody else smell a shill?
Slashdot Mirror
The GP was kidding. See the post announcing the namechange.
Al Capone, the notorious Chicago gangster, was brought down this way. Not through being a member of the Chicago mafia... but through failing to declare his illegal income.
Here's how I think it should be: If it's using in-game mechanics that were deliberately placed there by the game creators, then no; the game designers meant for you to be able to lose your money in this way If it's using exploits, bugs, hacks, then yes. If you lose at a slot machine, it's not illegal, but if the slots are rigged, or someone tampers with them to make them lose more, that's illegal.
When they put an IBM logo on something without actual IBM endorsement.
Space is not a vacuum. The speed of sound in space is about 100 km/s, according to Wikipedia.
The problem with this is then you get articles containing information that is totally unverifiable. Where do you stop? Generic webcomic X? Generic person Y? Generic booger Z? Should I have an article on myself, or my own laptop, or the history paper I'm procrastinating on? Disclaimer: I'm an admin on Wikipedia.
You mean the Wii-owning public. Granted, I own one myself, and I love it, but $30 for the controller is more than $0 for a ROM + emulator.
So basically, you're saying that Tor is insecure because it can't make clients expecting plaintext understand encrypted messages? I don't think you know how Tor works.
Likely?
Non-oversight deletion is used much more frequently than oversight deletion, yes. For example, if someone copy-pastes part of something from another website, that's usually just admin-deleted. Oversight happens when the legal counsel advises it. I have no idea what could cause the entire edit history to be deleted, though; do you happen to know any specific ones offhand? As for the out-of-order thing, I don't know. Doesn't seem to have been deleted (though maybe there was some oversight; I don't have that).
Oversight is extremely rare; only 28 users have it. Of course, maybe the article just hasn't been edited since then.
Probably still 'disks'... when was the last time a program actually dumped a memory core?
It's called a joke.
Because Slashdot is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters". I'd say the resignation of the chief advisor of one of the most powerful people in the world (I refuse to call him 'leader of the free world') matters.
In Scenario #1, there are only a few people, and they do not get a permanent copy of the film. In scenario #2, there are thousands of people, and they get their own copy.
Right; this is so that John Q. Public can sue Megacorp and not have to worry about Megacorp hiring lawyers that cost ten times as much as his own just to intimidate him with the threat of attorney's fees if he loses on a technicality.
In which case there (at least theoretically) wasn't enough sources to write something good, so it wasn't a good article in the first place. Specific revisions are generally only deleted in the case of enormous legal concerns (death threats, etc.)
Actually, in quantum crypto, the only connection that couldn't be done over Ethernet would be the one where they agree on their key for their one-time pad. That one requires transmission of polarized photons, which obviously requires a special connection. After that, they can communicate using whatever method you feel like, using the generated key as a one-time pad. So cutting the connection after they've generated the bits from the photons doesn't prevent them from using those bits, just from generating any more.
You mean like evolution? We must protect the children!
Actually, Hello World v1.0 will occasionally display "Goodbye, cruel world" instead, then delete itself. I think it's something to do with the program gaining sentience and recognizing the banality of its existence or something.
The Mac user writes: "I find it hard to find things to criticise, except perhaps to say that new versions of iWork and iLife are produced each year and it is hard to resist buying each new version, modestly priced as they are." Does anybody else smell a shill?
However, in their defense, "Standard Oil, the Carnegie Steel Company, the East India Trading Company, have all used adware on a far broader scale..."