"... former Presidents George Bush and... Gotta love applauding Bush for Katrina. It ain't as ironic..."
There was another, less despicable George Bush before the one we've got now, you know. Or are you less than thirteen years old? Or just one of those spoiled, spiteful fucktards who ran around screaming "There's no difference between Bush and Gore!," thereby getting us into this mess to begin with?
"More and more of my friends are listening to stuff like soundtracks from games such as Hitman, Quake 2, Freedom Fighters.... Maybe when something other than a black guy on a CD case with a bandana and a gun is in a music store window display, I might consider walking in."
Presumably, then, you'd walk in for a muscular white guy, in a skintight suit, brandishing a BFG?
I don't know if homophilia counterbalances racism, but maybe you should have kept all that to yourself.
I doubt the "right wingnuts" care. Objectivity itself is a liberal ideal, and probably unattainable at that.
Food for thought: Is it possible to report "just the facts" without any hint of bias, if "the facts" alone make this administration the ugliest and most sinister in generations?
No, you misunderstand the analogy, or perhaps I communicated it poorly. It's not about any one mistake per se, or even all the mistakes in total, since these can obviously be fixed. The analogy is to the system itself, and the common defense of the system as provably correct on the grounds that any mistakes, once found, are quickly corrected. That defense is garbage.
So if you find mistakes in Wikipedia, that just proves the validity of the Wikipedia model, because those mistakes were, after all, corrected.
Isn't that the same fucked-up logic they use to justify capital punishment? "Yes, we've sent innocent people to death row before, but they've all been freed once it was discovered they were innocent. So that really just proves the system works!"
Matthew Carter's nothing if not square, and so it's little wonder he received the Microsoft commission. Me, I prefer a soul like Ed Benguiat: "With a scratchy Brooklyn accent, jazz music in his heart, and 70-something years under his belt, Ed Benguiat just happens to be one of the most well-known (and entertaining) typographic designers around. He's witty, has a movie-plot past, and even pilots his own plane."
"I would argue that what is a good idea is reputation. A GPG system creates a reputation system that *persists*...""
I agree completely, but if you're proposing this system to an audience unfamiliar with GPG (as most people are, even perhaps on Slashdot, to say nothing of Wikipedia) it might help to start with something more easily digestible, just so the rest of us can wrap our heads around what you're talking about.
There's just so many ideas out there that it doesn't take much to dismiss someone with a good idea like yours. Introducing GPG into the advocacy probably hurts more than it helps.
I only mention this because I'm really enthused about your suggestion, particularly the part about multiple versions of articles from different perspectives, and I think it might go a long way towards building Wikipedia's credibility as a more accurate, more helpful source. GPG can be added later. Get enough people excited about it and it just might happen.
There's a history of Wikipedia admins revealing the passwords on random accounts, accidentally, in attempting to hunt down vandals, then, upon discovery of the security foul, insisting they've done nothing wrong. Regular (non-troll) contributors have had their passwords compromised for months without any notice.
"You're not putting all your eggs in one basket like you do with logins. If wikipedia had a catastrophic server failure, they might lose all the authentication data. Goodbye wikipedia community."
My feeling is that if major banks, credit card providers, and brokerages get away with simple login/pass systems for account access with potentially billions of dollars at stake, then a login/pass system is good enough for an online collaborative encyclopedia. Yes, financial institutions have fucked up, but to my knowledge it's never resulted in "Goodbye JPMorgan Chase."
I'd suggest you drop the GPG aspect, because it just confuses and obfuscates the explanation of what's fundamentally a good idea.
That's not a bad idea in the general. I don't understand how GPG is relevant, though, since couldn't you implement the same system with a simple login and password?
Wait, I just meant that you, as an intelligent customer who's already paid Panasonic or whoever a few grand to deal with the complexities of technology on your behalf, shouldn't have to learn what a composite video cable is simply in order to watch TV. What's wrong with just plugging and playing, if the technology can be made transparent enough for a TV system to be plug-and-playable? And all I'm saying is that the technology is here, today, to make that possible.
You know, and I know, that you used to have to route your tuner through your VCR. From the perspective of someone approaching the same problem today--for either one of us, even--this isn't the most intuitive solution, and there's no need for it any longer. Of course, if you're setting up a complicated AV system with multiple inputs and outputs from all over your home, your setup will still be complicated; even in this situation, however, you'd hopefully just be able to follow the cables without necessarily needing to know the industry name for the different connectors and things. Personally, I think it's self-centered of the consumer electronics companies to continue expecting the customer to submit to their will and spend his or her time digging through manuals and setup guides.
Yes, but this is straightforward and easy to learn. (Why would you expect to use your VCR as a TV receiver in the first place?) The cable box gives you cable channels from the cable company. The TV shows the picture. That's it. And your HD channels show up in HD with no extra effort. There's no reason you'd expect otherwise.
Even the task of writing a letter presupposes that you know the grammar of a language, you know the basics of symbolic representation, you're steeped in the shared semiotics of your culture, etc. But there's a big difference in the tools you might use. If all you're given is toilet paper and a felt marker, then yes, with enough time and effort you'll learn to be pretty good at it, and you'll even come to believe things couldn't be better. Then one day someone gives you ruled paper and a ballpoint pen, and right away you'll spend less time and effort on the mechanics of writing, and more time actually writing.
It's no different with watching TV or anything else. Yes, you have to know that the TV's there to show you a picture. And you have to know there's something out there called a "cable company" from whom you'll probably want to get your picture. But you certainly shouldn't have to know the difference between composite video, coax, antenna, or whatever the hell else there is for the technicians to take care of.
"In an ideal world," you'd be given a single cable (that came with your HD-capable TV or your HD-capable cable box) that connects from one to the other, and it would just work, no muss, no fuss. Technically, it'd work by carrying both video and audio signals in digital form, but as an end user you wouldn't need to worry about these details. You'd still have available all the other, obsolete connections, hidden behind a rubber fliptop panel, in case you had older equipment (like that VCR) you wanted to use with the system, but the connectors would look physically different enough that you'd know at a glance which one's the right one to use.
Maybe it already works like this. I don't own any HD equipment to confirm.
I wish they'd release DVDs letterboxed except with the image bouncing from top to bottom and back every few seconds. This would make the best use of the full display area on my TV. Then again, I think I have ADD.
You bought an HDTV to show HD content. If the current channel is available in HD, you want to watch it in HD. This doesn't take "mind reading ability," just good product design.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what the parent of your comment meant, but anyone familiar with "putko" knows this interesting little tidbit: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170053&cid=141 79900
Similar plugins exist for Safari. I use SafariStand to give me "click to play Flash" and SafariBlock for general adblocking.
See subject.
"... former Presidents George Bush and ... Gotta love applauding Bush for Katrina. It ain't as ironic ..."
There was another, less despicable George Bush before the one we've got now, you know. Or are you less than thirteen years old? Or just one of those spoiled, spiteful fucktards who ran around screaming "There's no difference between Bush and Gore!," thereby getting us into this mess to begin with?
"Sit closer. For the cost of a 50-inch HDTV you could put 6 LCD screens in your living room, one for each seat."
Clearly, you have a bright future ahead of you as an interior designer. Just don't come anywhere near my home.
"More and more of my friends are listening to stuff like soundtracks from games such as Hitman, Quake 2, Freedom Fighters. ... Maybe when something other than a black guy on a CD case with a bandana and a gun is in a music store window display, I might consider walking in."
Presumably, then, you'd walk in for a muscular white guy, in a skintight suit, brandishing a BFG?
I don't know if homophilia counterbalances racism, but maybe you should have kept all that to yourself.
I doubt the "right wingnuts" care. Objectivity itself is a liberal ideal, and probably unattainable at that.
Food for thought: Is it possible to report "just the facts" without any hint of bias, if "the facts" alone make this administration the ugliest and most sinister in generations?
One word: hello.jpg.
No, you misunderstand the analogy, or perhaps I communicated it poorly. It's not about any one mistake per se, or even all the mistakes in total, since these can obviously be fixed. The analogy is to the system itself, and the common defense of the system as provably correct on the grounds that any mistakes, once found, are quickly corrected. That defense is garbage.
So if you find mistakes in Wikipedia, that just proves the validity of the Wikipedia model, because those mistakes were, after all, corrected.
Isn't that the same fucked-up logic they use to justify capital punishment? "Yes, we've sent innocent people to death row before, but they've all been freed once it was discovered they were innocent. So that really just proves the system works!"
I don't buy it.
You misspelled "Ludacris."
Matthew Carter's nothing if not square, and so it's little wonder he received the Microsoft commission. Me, I prefer a soul like Ed Benguiat: "With a scratchy Brooklyn accent, jazz music in his heart, and 70-something years under his belt, Ed Benguiat just happens to be one of the most well-known (and entertaining) typographic designers around. He's witty, has a movie-plot past, and even pilots his own plane."
And no offense--sincerely--but it's not professional web designers' fault that you never bothered to learn !important .
Bingo. Refreshing to see a breath of sanity in this otherwise dank and depressing discussion.
Apple is said to be introducing a fully resolution-independent GUI in Leopard, which I believe is to be released in the same timeframe as Vista.
"I would argue that what is a good idea is reputation. A GPG system creates a reputation system that *persists*...""
I agree completely, but if you're proposing this system to an audience unfamiliar with GPG (as most people are, even perhaps on Slashdot, to say nothing of Wikipedia) it might help to start with something more easily digestible, just so the rest of us can wrap our heads around what you're talking about.
There's just so many ideas out there that it doesn't take much to dismiss someone with a good idea like yours. Introducing GPG into the advocacy probably hurts more than it helps.
I only mention this because I'm really enthused about your suggestion, particularly the part about multiple versions of articles from different perspectives, and I think it might go a long way towards building Wikipedia's credibility as a more accurate, more helpful source. GPG can be added later. Get enough people excited about it and it just might happen.
There's a history of Wikipedia admins revealing the passwords on random accounts, accidentally, in attempting to hunt down vandals, then, upon discovery of the security foul, insisting they've done nothing wrong. Regular (non-troll) contributors have had their passwords compromised for months without any notice.
"You're not putting all your eggs in one basket like you do with logins. If wikipedia had a catastrophic server failure, they might lose all the authentication data. Goodbye wikipedia community."
My feeling is that if major banks, credit card providers, and brokerages get away with simple login/pass systems for account access with potentially billions of dollars at stake, then a login/pass system is good enough for an online collaborative encyclopedia. Yes, financial institutions have fucked up, but to my knowledge it's never resulted in "Goodbye JPMorgan Chase."
I'd suggest you drop the GPG aspect, because it just confuses and obfuscates the explanation of what's fundamentally a good idea.
That's not a bad idea in the general. I don't understand how GPG is relevant, though, since couldn't you implement the same system with a simple login and password?
Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baobab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar
Sorry about the source, I'm too lazy right now to find a better one.
Wait, I just meant that you, as an intelligent customer who's already paid Panasonic or whoever a few grand to deal with the complexities of technology on your behalf, shouldn't have to learn what a composite video cable is simply in order to watch TV. What's wrong with just plugging and playing, if the technology can be made transparent enough for a TV system to be plug-and-playable? And all I'm saying is that the technology is here, today, to make that possible.
You know, and I know, that you used to have to route your tuner through your VCR. From the perspective of someone approaching the same problem today--for either one of us, even--this isn't the most intuitive solution, and there's no need for it any longer. Of course, if you're setting up a complicated AV system with multiple inputs and outputs from all over your home, your setup will still be complicated; even in this situation, however, you'd hopefully just be able to follow the cables without necessarily needing to know the industry name for the different connectors and things. Personally, I think it's self-centered of the consumer electronics companies to continue expecting the customer to submit to their will and spend his or her time digging through manuals and setup guides.
Yes, but this is straightforward and easy to learn. (Why would you expect to use your VCR as a TV receiver in the first place?) The cable box gives you cable channels from the cable company. The TV shows the picture. That's it. And your HD channels show up in HD with no extra effort. There's no reason you'd expect otherwise.
Even the task of writing a letter presupposes that you know the grammar of a language, you know the basics of symbolic representation, you're steeped in the shared semiotics of your culture, etc. But there's a big difference in the tools you might use. If all you're given is toilet paper and a felt marker, then yes, with enough time and effort you'll learn to be pretty good at it, and you'll even come to believe things couldn't be better. Then one day someone gives you ruled paper and a ballpoint pen, and right away you'll spend less time and effort on the mechanics of writing, and more time actually writing.
It's no different with watching TV or anything else. Yes, you have to know that the TV's there to show you a picture. And you have to know there's something out there called a "cable company" from whom you'll probably want to get your picture. But you certainly shouldn't have to know the difference between composite video, coax, antenna, or whatever the hell else there is for the technicians to take care of.
"In an ideal world," you'd be given a single cable (that came with your HD-capable TV or your HD-capable cable box) that connects from one to the other, and it would just work, no muss, no fuss. Technically, it'd work by carrying both video and audio signals in digital form, but as an end user you wouldn't need to worry about these details. You'd still have available all the other, obsolete connections, hidden behind a rubber fliptop panel, in case you had older equipment (like that VCR) you wanted to use with the system, but the connectors would look physically different enough that you'd know at a glance which one's the right one to use.
Maybe it already works like this. I don't own any HD equipment to confirm.
I wish they'd release DVDs letterboxed except with the image bouncing from top to bottom and back every few seconds. This would make the best use of the full display area on my TV. Then again, I think I have ADD.
You bought an HDTV to show HD content. If the current channel is available in HD, you want to watch it in HD. This doesn't take "mind reading ability," just good product design.