Look at it this way: If I set out to write a program, I have to decide what license I'll want it to be under. If I choose a restrictive copyright, then I'll only be able to use code from projects that are compatible with that license. If, however, I choose the GPL, then all GPL-licensed code will be available to me. Being able to use all that code serves as an incentive, or encouragement for me to license my program under the GPL - it does not force me to make that decision though.
The only time force comes into play is if I were to choose to use GPL code in my program and then refuse to license it under the GPL. In that case, I could be forced to comply with the license, yes - but that's true for any license. If I tried to use BSDL code without acknowledging the author, I would be forced to comply with that license too. So maybe in some technical, pedantic sense the GPL could conceivable end up forcing someone to do stuff - but honestly, we're talking about a legal construct. All legal constructs involve force - that's the point.
GPL will FORCE you to use GPL for derivative works.
I guess, but you're not forced to use my GPL code in your project. If you'd like to take the library I've worked hard on and use it to build your own program, you have to license your program as GPL. If you'd rather not license your code under GPL, you're free to write your own library, or find a different one that doesn't include that requirement.
The idea that the GPL is "restricting people's freedom" by "force" is a stretch that requires forgetting that using GPL code in the first place is an entirely voluntary decision.
Truly allowing freedom would allow freedom to be taken away, and we can't allow that, so we've taken away some freedom to allow true freedom to flourish.
Ok look: Absolute freedom is a social impossibility, because it can only apply to one person. It's impossible to give everybody absolute freedom (no restrictions whatsoever on their behavior) because this would give us the freedom to enslave each other. You can characterize that as some Orwellian doublespeak, but it's a fundamental reality. The purpose of a "free" society is not allowing everyone to do absolutely whatever they want, it's allowing them to do whatever they want as much as possible without seriously interfering with other people's freedoms.
Freedom isn't absolute - people can't have freedom X unless they're also "unfree" to restrict freedom X. This realization can be frustrating and seemingly hypocritical (and is definitely abused at times), but it's important to understand before shitting all over the work of people who are genuinely working to increase the practical freedom we enjoy today, simply because it doesn't mesh with some philosophically pure concept of freedom.
As you have no idea what I've been through, whom I've talked to, and how I've lived,
That's true, and I'm assuming from what you imply that you've been through a some really bad experiences. I wasn't trying to imply that you've had it easy, just that you haven't had every problem that everyone else on the streets has had - it's not possible. Unless you're some kind of HIV-positive schizophrenic disabled veteran of foreign war who's fleeing an abusive relationship and addicted to crack who had a severely traumatic childhood, etc.
if your {I'm betting brief} homeless stint gives you the right to lecture, what makes you think anyone else that's been in that situation can't?
You're right, being or having been homeless doesn't give you or me a right to lecture, which is why I said that the much more important thing is having knowledge and understanding of what a lot of other people who are homeless go through and have been through. While it may be easy for me to remain balanced in the face of poverty, I've learned that it's not so for everyone. And while it's seems simple and easy to just hold them to the same standard as yourself, it's not practical because it won't solve their problems or yours.
If you're on drugs, there're halfway houses and freebie rehabs in many urban areas.
Yes, but most of those places, at least the ones I know about, put you on lockdown or severely restrict you during the course of the program. Personally, I think it's probably a good idea, but it understandably leads to a lot of people who might be looking for help to keep away.
Female and pregnant/have kids? LOTS of options there, including financial/housing assistance
But if you have kids over 16 or 18? Most of the time they won't be allowed in the family shelter with you, they'll have to find their own men's shelter (or women's, but commonly the family+women's shelter are the same). And if you have a husband? You can pretty much forget about seeing him while you're at the shelter.
If you were homeless and never hit the Salvation Army
Yeah, and if you couldn't come up with 10 bucks at the Salvation Army shelter every night, it would be kind of difficult. Or, if the staff took a disliking to you for whatever reason (for example if someone attacked you and you tried to defend yourself), you're permanently banned from both SA services and probably United Way and related services as well, if you're in a place where they compare notes.
The point is that there are services out there - and for some people they're more than enough, and those people should get off their asses and use the tools available to improve their situation. But for many others, the services available don't cut it for one reason or another, and as long as we pretend that they can just pull themselves up by the bootstraps in the current environment and never do anything unethical or illegal, we ensure that they'll stay in the cycle they're in, and we'll have to continue enduring the fallout of crime that is a result of that cycle.
You misunderstood - intentionally or not. I think using a taser in self-defense against a violent attacker is perfectly legitimate, and probably a great way to defend yourself. If this indeed was a case where the officer was acting in self-defense, it'd be perfectly justified.
But the officer wasn't acting in self-defense, because there was no "violent resistance". The officers were not harmed in any way or ever in danger of being harmed. This was also completely obvious to them at the time, since they had him pinned with many officers surrounding him, so there's no credible way anyone could claim they were acting in response to "violent resistance".
Question 1: You sure? I didn't give details; I don't do SOB stories.
Yes, I'm sure. Simply because even if you have a "sob story", your story isn't the only one. Each homeless person has their own fucked up reasons for being on the streets, and I seriously doubt you've been in all of their situations, or even have much of an understanding of the kinds of things many of these folks have been through.
Question 2: Have YOU had any experience with homelessness
Yes. Both firsthand and (more importantly) through knowing many other people who are still or once were homeless. Hearing other people's stories gives me a much better idea of what homelessness is like than just taking my own experience and projecting it onto every other homeless person, and then condemning them for not behaving the way I would have.
I'm not advocating locking ALL homeless up
Right, you're not - I didn't mean to suggest that. You are advocating punishing homeless people - who overwhelmingly commit crimes out of desperation, mental/emotional illness, or severe drug addiction - the same as well-off people, who more often commit crimes out of malice, sociopathy, greed, etc.
The law exists to prevent crime, not to punish crime, and I see much more preventative value in jailing people who are malicious, sociopathic, or amorally greedy than those who are simply in a bad situation. Sure, there are some of those people in the homeless population as well, but the majority of homeless offenders just need some really basic help to get them back on the right track, and they can be productive members of society. All jailing these people does is make it more difficult for them to get back on their feet, and predestine them for many more years of homelessness - and probably crime - when they get out.
Oh for real? In that case I take it back. Using a taser is definitely justified when acting in self-defense.
btw, are the officers recovering ok from their injuries? Oh wait. No officers were injured. Nor was there any point when they were in danger of being injured - unless holding your hands up or trying to run away are forms of assault.
any of the times *I* was homeless, I managed to survive without ripping people off.
I get the feeling that you're one of those people who thinks because they've been homeless, they can pass judgment on anyone else who's homeless because "they've been there". You may have been without a home, but you haven't been where a lot of homeless people are.
Ever been a seriously traumatized veteran? Ever been an abused woman on the run? Ever had psychological problems so bad that some days you don't know who you are? These are the stories of the homeless, and I've heard them all first hand many times. Of course people like this get into bad situations, get addicted to drugs, and commit crimes against each other (primarily) and the broader population. No, their situation doesn't justify crime, but it makes it pretty much inevitable whether they're "criminally inclined" or not.
I'm very glad that you managed to get out of homelessness without doing anything unethical - I did as well. But the majority of the homeless don't need to be "locked up". They need some basic level of decency and some social support. A small percentage may need to be locked up, and some may need to be institutionalized, but to claim they all deserve jail because you have walked in their shoes is just self-righteous delusion.
This guy is yet another symptom of a class of Americans that have an entitlement complex and no sense of what is socially acceptable behavior.
And you are yet another symptom of a class of Americans so obsessed with making everyone be pleasant and "socially acceptable" that you're willing to justify the assault and torture of people for being impolite.
it's the localized stun mode designed to get the guy to shut up, listen, and comply.
"Stun" is a funny word to use in the context of tasers. The definition of that word is "To daze or render senseless", "To overwhelm or daze with a loud noise.", or "To stupefy, as with the emotional impact of an experience; astound."
None of these are what a taser does. A taser causes pain in extreme amounts, and that's about it. It's not designed to "stupefy" you, or make you "dazed" or "senseless", it's designed to make you feel pain, with the intention being that you will choose to do what you're told in order to avoid feeling more pain.
Tasers are torture devices, and defending their use in non-threatening situations is advocating torture.
what Stallman really wants is for you to get permissions from the FSF before you use the code.
That's silly - you don't need permission from anyone to use GPL-licensed code, you just need to conform to the license. The FSF has no legal control over code licensed under the GPL, they just wrote up a license that they liked, and other people decided to use it because they like it too.
If he was truly interested in freedom he would just advocate tossing all code into the public domain
I think, ultimately, he would agree that's ideal. But I get the feeling that such a campaign would draw even more ridicule and opposition than his current one. But currently, we have laws that allow someone to take public domain code and lock it up.
If you want to offer people the freedom to use your code without expecting they grant you the same freedom, I guess that's your call. But I and a lot of other people expect that if we're going to make our code freely available, it's only fair that those who use that code should do the same.
Maybe those people don't want to be associated with or represented by this person that doesn't have a home and looks like a slob.
If people choose to prioritize appearances and social conformity games above intelligent ideas and important ideals, then they shouldn't be associated with RMS or the FSF.
If you appear you're putting very little effort into your personal appearance, what else are you dropping the ball on?
Open source is about function over form. The success of open source is largely due to its emphasis on getting things done, rather than being attractive, charismatic, and marketing-savvy.
I think Stallman is a great embodiment of that philosophy - I would hate to have some snappy-dressing, smooth-talking business type as a spokesperson for the open source movement.
The keyboard is wirelessly connected to it [...] how do you plan on hacking it?
Point a high-gain antenna at your window and wait for you to transmit all your precious passwords from your wireless keyboard to your ultra-secured box. Likely, your keyboard will transmit your every keystroke in "plaintext", however some wireless keyboards use encryption. It's a very weak key and can be bruted offline with minimal effort.
And furthermore, even if we hadn't paid for the infrastructure, it's on our land. Telecoms have special privileges to run cables through my property, and through the public property that I pay taxes to maintain. Wireless broadcasters have a special, government enforced exclusive right to broadcast over the airwaves both on my property and in public space.
Telecoms like to act as though this is their inalienable right, but it's not, it's a privilege the public has granted them in return for a useful service. They owe each of us, big time, but they seem to see it the other way around.
But then of course the problem is that many of the test subjects may die before they can collect their payment. Solution: instead of buying the services of the child, simply buy the child itself outright from its parents. This would also allow the experimenters greater freedom in terms of how they treat and store their subjects, since the child would be their property and not entitled to inconveniences like "humane treatment".
Enrich third world parents, and advance first world medicine at the same time...I see a golden age of science on the horizon!
Namely they both reduce everyone's progress to the slowest of the group. That's anti-Darwinism.
I'll be damned, and they said Social Darwinism was dead. Are you serious? You really think it's appropriate to apply the principles of "survival of the fittest" to modern human society? This was a popular philosophy in the 1940's and 50's among the economic elite. The reasoning goes: People who are wealthy and powerful are that way because they're more "fit", and have better social "genes". Conversely, people who are poor and powerless are that way because they're less "fit". In short, wealthy people deserve to be wealthy because they're in some way inherently superior, and poor people likewise deserve their lot because they're inherently inferior. After all, if you had good, "fit genes", you'd be rich, right? And you're not, so that can only mean one thing...
Why do you think we've lost so many of Americas best, and so much of our national treasure?
We didn't "lose" anything. It's not like "whoops, where's America's best?" We killed them. You only get to say "lose" when something or someone becomes missing beyond your control. We knew we were sending kids to kill and die, and we did it anyway, on purpose. Some would claim that it was for a good reason, but please don't act like it was a tragic accident.
the worst tyrant among them sits in the most strategic crossroads in the middle of all the rest, he is directly connected to the violence that erupts from the oppressed peoples all around.
Whew! Good thing all the violence from "the oppressed peoples all around" is a thing of the past, now that we've gotten rid of that tyrant.
You, sitting in your comfy office, simply cannot hope for your kids to be safe
1) I don't have any kids, but I do hope for other people's kids to be safe. Including those living in the middle east.
2) Are you a soldier in Iraq? If not, please drop the "you, sitting in your comfy office" angle, as it's pathetically hypocritical.
Do rise above your personal hatred for GW and think a little in geostrategic terms.
Why would I bother with that when you've clearly got it worked out so perfectly already?:)
The big thing in academic research is peer review, and what is Wikipedia but the extension of peer review to the larger community?
Wikipedia does use peer review, but it's a different kind than what we see in the academic community. If something is peer reviewed in Wikipedia, it means that other people are able to confirm that all the listed information has been published in reliable sources. "Verifiability, not truth" as they say. If something is peer reviewed in the scientific community, it means that other people have made direct observations that support your hypothesis. Basically, it doesn't matter what's published or which "reliable sources" claim otherwise, the scientific method yields to the information that can be confirmed by observation.
I'm certainly not a fanboi
I am, actually - I think Wikipedia is one of the greatest things to emerge from the internet, but the reason I think that is because I realize what it is - and is not.
What's prevents Wikipedia setting up a foo area moderated by a panel of foo experts known to the foo community?
I mean, you could set up a phpbb board with moderator access for the Physics department and call it "Wikipedia Physics", but it's just a name. The entire, central point of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute and (at least theoretically) anyone can administrate. That central point is responsible for the phenomenal growth and participation in Wikipedia, wheras more restrictive media sit stagnant.
I think the difficulty is that people conflate "Wikipedia" with "wikis". There could be (and actually are many) academic wikis, made available to scientists and researchers to review and share each other's ideas. These wikis are a great step away from the "journal-industrial complex", but they're not Wikipedia because not everyone can participate. And if they wish to gain the prestige and blind faith currently afforded scientific journals, they should probably stay that way.
Wikipedia is able to invite everyone to participate because the bar for participation is so low. You don't have to discover anything, or even know anything. All you have to do is find information from other sources and aggregate it in a summarized article - sort of like Cliffs Notes for everything. Similarly, the litmus test for what's allowed to be on Wikipedia is much simpler than in academia. If someone writes something questionable you just ask "Source?". If there are some, OK, if not, deleted. If the expectations were more complex than that, it'd be impossible to manage while maintaining universal participation.
Sounds like a worthy start to the process of introducing more trustworthyness into Wikipedia entries
It's not, and the reason is that any attempt to introduce more "trustworthiness" into Wikipedia is a waste of time. People distrust Wikipedia because of its most basic, core concept: anyone can contribute. In order to get these people to trust Wikipedia, you'd have to eliminate that core concept. A trust system like this algorithm will just prompt "nay-sayers" to point out how it's not reliable either - and it's not. The more people try to shoehorn trust and reliability into the Wikipedia model, the more criticism it creates because people think Wikipedia is making a claim to reliability that is obviously false. It seems like someone's trying to trick them, and nobody likes that.
In a nutshell, Wikipedia isn't reliable, it's not meant to be, it's not going to be. Get over it and appreciate it for what it is, an often useful community-maintained reference.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at it this way: If I set out to write a program, I have to decide what license I'll want it to be under. If I choose a restrictive copyright, then I'll only be able to use code from projects that are compatible with that license. If, however, I choose the GPL, then all GPL-licensed code will be available to me. Being able to use all that code serves as an incentive, or encouragement for me to license my program under the GPL - it does not force me to make that decision though.
The only time force comes into play is if I were to choose to use GPL code in my program and then refuse to license it under the GPL. In that case, I could be forced to comply with the license, yes - but that's true for any license. If I tried to use BSDL code without acknowledging the author, I would be forced to comply with that license too. So maybe in some technical, pedantic sense the GPL could conceivable end up forcing someone to do stuff - but honestly, we're talking about a legal construct. All legal constructs involve force - that's the point.
GPL will FORCE you to use GPL for derivative works.
I guess, but you're not forced to use my GPL code in your project. If you'd like to take the library I've worked hard on and use it to build your own program, you have to license your program as GPL. If you'd rather not license your code under GPL, you're free to write your own library, or find a different one that doesn't include that requirement.
The idea that the GPL is "restricting people's freedom" by "force" is a stretch that requires forgetting that using GPL code in the first place is an entirely voluntary decision.
Truly allowing freedom would allow freedom to be taken away, and we can't allow that, so we've taken away some freedom to allow true freedom to flourish.
Ok look: Absolute freedom is a social impossibility, because it can only apply to one person. It's impossible to give everybody absolute freedom (no restrictions whatsoever on their behavior) because this would give us the freedom to enslave each other. You can characterize that as some Orwellian doublespeak, but it's a fundamental reality. The purpose of a "free" society is not allowing everyone to do absolutely whatever they want, it's allowing them to do whatever they want as much as possible without seriously interfering with other people's freedoms.
Freedom isn't absolute - people can't have freedom X unless they're also "unfree" to restrict freedom X. This realization can be frustrating and seemingly hypocritical (and is definitely abused at times), but it's important to understand before shitting all over the work of people who are genuinely working to increase the practical freedom we enjoy today, simply because it doesn't mesh with some philosophically pure concept of freedom.
As you have no idea what I've been through, whom I've talked to, and how I've lived,
That's true, and I'm assuming from what you imply that you've been through a some really bad experiences. I wasn't trying to imply that you've had it easy, just that you haven't had every problem that everyone else on the streets has had - it's not possible. Unless you're some kind of HIV-positive schizophrenic disabled veteran of foreign war who's fleeing an abusive relationship and addicted to crack who had a severely traumatic childhood, etc.
if your {I'm betting brief} homeless stint gives you the right to lecture, what makes you think anyone else that's been in that situation can't?
You're right, being or having been homeless doesn't give you or me a right to lecture, which is why I said that the much more important thing is having knowledge and understanding of what a lot of other people who are homeless go through and have been through. While it may be easy for me to remain balanced in the face of poverty, I've learned that it's not so for everyone. And while it's seems simple and easy to just hold them to the same standard as yourself, it's not practical because it won't solve their problems or yours.
If you're on drugs, there're halfway houses and freebie rehabs in many urban areas.
Yes, but most of those places, at least the ones I know about, put you on lockdown or severely restrict you during the course of the program. Personally, I think it's probably a good idea, but it understandably leads to a lot of people who might be looking for help to keep away.
Female and pregnant/have kids? LOTS of options there, including financial/housing assistance
But if you have kids over 16 or 18? Most of the time they won't be allowed in the family shelter with you, they'll have to find their own men's shelter (or women's, but commonly the family+women's shelter are the same). And if you have a husband? You can pretty much forget about seeing him while you're at the shelter.
If you were homeless and never hit the Salvation Army
Yeah, and if you couldn't come up with 10 bucks at the Salvation Army shelter every night, it would be kind of difficult. Or, if the staff took a disliking to you for whatever reason (for example if someone attacked you and you tried to defend yourself), you're permanently banned from both SA services and probably United Way and related services as well, if you're in a place where they compare notes.
The point is that there are services out there - and for some people they're more than enough, and those people should get off their asses and use the tools available to improve their situation. But for many others, the services available don't cut it for one reason or another, and as long as we pretend that they can just pull themselves up by the bootstraps in the current environment and never do anything unethical or illegal, we ensure that they'll stay in the cycle they're in, and we'll have to continue enduring the fallout of crime that is a result of that cycle.
You misunderstood - intentionally or not. I think using a taser in self-defense against a violent attacker is perfectly legitimate, and probably a great way to defend yourself. If this indeed was a case where the officer was acting in self-defense, it'd be perfectly justified.
But the officer wasn't acting in self-defense, because there was no "violent resistance". The officers were not harmed in any way or ever in danger of being harmed. This was also completely obvious to them at the time, since they had him pinned with many officers surrounding him, so there's no credible way anyone could claim they were acting in response to "violent resistance".
Question 1: You sure? I didn't give details; I don't do SOB stories.
Yes, I'm sure. Simply because even if you have a "sob story", your story isn't the only one. Each homeless person has their own fucked up reasons for being on the streets, and I seriously doubt you've been in all of their situations, or even have much of an understanding of the kinds of things many of these folks have been through.
Question 2: Have YOU had any experience with homelessness
Yes. Both firsthand and (more importantly) through knowing many other people who are still or once were homeless. Hearing other people's stories gives me a much better idea of what homelessness is like than just taking my own experience and projecting it onto every other homeless person, and then condemning them for not behaving the way I would have.
I'm not advocating locking ALL homeless up
Right, you're not - I didn't mean to suggest that. You are advocating punishing homeless people - who overwhelmingly commit crimes out of desperation, mental/emotional illness, or severe drug addiction - the same as well-off people, who more often commit crimes out of malice, sociopathy, greed, etc.
The law exists to prevent crime, not to punish crime, and I see much more preventative value in jailing people who are malicious, sociopathic, or amorally greedy than those who are simply in a bad situation. Sure, there are some of those people in the homeless population as well, but the majority of homeless offenders just need some really basic help to get them back on the right track, and they can be productive members of society. All jailing these people does is make it more difficult for them to get back on their feet, and predestine them for many more years of homelessness - and probably crime - when they get out.
The guy was tazed after violently resisting
Oh for real? In that case I take it back. Using a taser is definitely justified when acting in self-defense.
btw, are the officers recovering ok from their injuries? Oh wait. No officers were injured. Nor was there any point when they were in danger of being injured - unless holding your hands up or trying to run away are forms of assault.
any of the times *I* was homeless, I managed to survive without ripping people off.
I get the feeling that you're one of those people who thinks because they've been homeless, they can pass judgment on anyone else who's homeless because "they've been there". You may have been without a home, but you haven't been where a lot of homeless people are.
Ever been a seriously traumatized veteran? Ever been an abused woman on the run? Ever had psychological problems so bad that some days you don't know who you are? These are the stories of the homeless, and I've heard them all first hand many times. Of course people like this get into bad situations, get addicted to drugs, and commit crimes against each other (primarily) and the broader population. No, their situation doesn't justify crime, but it makes it pretty much inevitable whether they're "criminally inclined" or not.
I'm very glad that you managed to get out of homelessness without doing anything unethical - I did as well. But the majority of the homeless don't need to be "locked up". They need some basic level of decency and some social support. A small percentage may need to be locked up, and some may need to be institutionalized, but to claim they all deserve jail because you have walked in their shoes is just self-righteous delusion.
This guy is yet another symptom of a class of Americans that have an entitlement complex and no sense of what is socially acceptable behavior.
And you are yet another symptom of a class of Americans so obsessed with making everyone be pleasant and "socially acceptable" that you're willing to justify the assault and torture of people for being impolite.
it's the localized stun mode designed to get the guy to shut up, listen, and comply.
"Stun" is a funny word to use in the context of tasers. The definition of that word is "To daze or render senseless", "To overwhelm or daze with a loud noise.", or "To stupefy, as with the emotional impact of an experience; astound."
None of these are what a taser does. A taser causes pain in extreme amounts, and that's about it. It's not designed to "stupefy" you, or make you "dazed" or "senseless", it's designed to make you feel pain, with the intention being that you will choose to do what you're told in order to avoid feeling more pain.
Tasers are torture devices, and defending their use in non-threatening situations is advocating torture.
Just render the mp3 to a wav file then encode it back to mp3.
That's lossy, analogous to making a photocopy of a photocopy.
what Stallman really wants is for you to get permissions from the FSF before you use the code.
That's silly - you don't need permission from anyone to use GPL-licensed code, you just need to conform to the license. The FSF has no legal control over code licensed under the GPL, they just wrote up a license that they liked, and other people decided to use it because they like it too.
If he was truly interested in freedom he would just advocate tossing all code into the public domain
I think, ultimately, he would agree that's ideal. But I get the feeling that such a campaign would draw even more ridicule and opposition than his current one. But currently, we have laws that allow someone to take public domain code and lock it up.
If you want to offer people the freedom to use your code without expecting they grant you the same freedom, I guess that's your call. But I and a lot of other people expect that if we're going to make our code freely available, it's only fair that those who use that code should do the same.
Maybe those people don't want to be associated with or represented by this person that doesn't have a home and looks like a slob.
If people choose to prioritize appearances and social conformity games above intelligent ideas and important ideals, then they shouldn't be associated with RMS or the FSF.
If you appear you're putting very little effort into your personal appearance, what else are you dropping the ball on?
Open source is about function over form. The success of open source is largely due to its emphasis on getting things done, rather than being attractive, charismatic, and marketing-savvy.
I think Stallman is a great embodiment of that philosophy - I would hate to have some snappy-dressing, smooth-talking business type as a spokesperson for the open source movement.
A cop is neither a man nor a woman? What the hell are they?
We are ED-209 units. Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
liberals [...] have an immediate, visceral, and very negative reaction to the letter 'W'.
Which is probably part of the reason they controlled the experiment by repeating it with the letters reversed.
The keyboard is wirelessly connected to it [...] how do you plan on hacking it?
:)
Point a high-gain antenna at your window and wait for you to transmit all your precious passwords from your wireless keyboard to your ultra-secured box. Likely, your keyboard will transmit your every keystroke in "plaintext", however some wireless keyboards use encryption. It's a very weak key and can be bruted offline with minimal effort.
Sleep tight
Ironically, the 2 millionth article was almost a train station as well
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That hasn't been true for at least a decade.
And furthermore, even if we hadn't paid for the infrastructure, it's on our land. Telecoms have special privileges to run cables through my property, and through the public property that I pay taxes to maintain. Wireless broadcasters have a special, government enforced exclusive right to broadcast over the airwaves both on my property and in public space.
Telecoms like to act as though this is their inalienable right, but it's not, it's a privilege the public has granted them in return for a useful service. They owe each of us, big time, but they seem to see it the other way around.
Shame on you, that would be slavery and unethical.
Wait, "ethical"? I thought we were talking about the free market, and the glories of unregulated capitalism...
The genius of high-minded science married to the moral apathy of insatiable greed: with a winning combination like that, who needs ethics?
But then of course the problem is that many of the test subjects may die before they can collect their payment. Solution: instead of buying the services of the child, simply buy the child itself outright from its parents. This would also allow the experimenters greater freedom in terms of how they treat and store their subjects, since the child would be their property and not entitled to inconveniences like "humane treatment".
Enrich third world parents, and advance first world medicine at the same time...I see a golden age of science on the horizon!
Namely they both reduce everyone's progress to the slowest of the group. That's anti-Darwinism.
I'll be damned, and they said Social Darwinism was dead. Are you serious? You really think it's appropriate to apply the principles of "survival of the fittest" to modern human society? This was a popular philosophy in the 1940's and 50's among the economic elite. The reasoning goes: People who are wealthy and powerful are that way because they're more "fit", and have better social "genes". Conversely, people who are poor and powerless are that way because they're less "fit". In short, wealthy people deserve to be wealthy because they're in some way inherently superior, and poor people likewise deserve their lot because they're inherently inferior. After all, if you had good, "fit genes", you'd be rich, right? And you're not, so that can only mean one thing...
Why do you think we've lost so many of Americas best, and so much of our national treasure?
:)
We didn't "lose" anything. It's not like "whoops, where's America's best?" We killed them. You only get to say "lose" when something or someone becomes missing beyond your control. We knew we were sending kids to kill and die, and we did it anyway, on purpose. Some would claim that it was for a good reason, but please don't act like it was a tragic accident.
the worst tyrant among them sits in the most strategic crossroads in the middle of all the rest, he is directly connected to the violence that erupts from the oppressed peoples all around.
Whew! Good thing all the violence from "the oppressed peoples all around" is a thing of the past, now that we've gotten rid of that tyrant.
You, sitting in your comfy office, simply cannot hope for your kids to be safe
1) I don't have any kids, but I do hope for other people's kids to be safe. Including those living in the middle east.
2) Are you a soldier in Iraq? If not, please drop the "you, sitting in your comfy office" angle, as it's pathetically hypocritical.
Do rise above your personal hatred for GW and think a little in geostrategic terms.
Why would I bother with that when you've clearly got it worked out so perfectly already?
The big thing in academic research is peer review, and what is Wikipedia but the extension of peer review to the larger community?
Wikipedia does use peer review, but it's a different kind than what we see in the academic community. If something is peer reviewed in Wikipedia, it means that other people are able to confirm that all the listed information has been published in reliable sources. "Verifiability, not truth" as they say. If something is peer reviewed in the scientific community, it means that other people have made direct observations that support your hypothesis. Basically, it doesn't matter what's published or which "reliable sources" claim otherwise, the scientific method yields to the information that can be confirmed by observation.
I'm certainly not a fanboi
I am, actually - I think Wikipedia is one of the greatest things to emerge from the internet, but the reason I think that is because I realize what it is - and is not.
What's prevents Wikipedia setting up a foo area moderated by a panel of foo experts known to the foo community?
I mean, you could set up a phpbb board with moderator access for the Physics department and call it "Wikipedia Physics", but it's just a name. The entire, central point of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute and (at least theoretically) anyone can administrate. That central point is responsible for the phenomenal growth and participation in Wikipedia, wheras more restrictive media sit stagnant.
I think the difficulty is that people conflate "Wikipedia" with "wikis". There could be (and actually are many) academic wikis, made available to scientists and researchers to review and share each other's ideas. These wikis are a great step away from the "journal-industrial complex", but they're not Wikipedia because not everyone can participate. And if they wish to gain the prestige and blind faith currently afforded scientific journals, they should probably stay that way.
Wikipedia is able to invite everyone to participate because the bar for participation is so low. You don't have to discover anything, or even know anything. All you have to do is find information from other sources and aggregate it in a summarized article - sort of like Cliffs Notes for everything. Similarly, the litmus test for what's allowed to be on Wikipedia is much simpler than in academia. If someone writes something questionable you just ask "Source?". If there are some, OK, if not, deleted. If the expectations were more complex than that, it'd be impossible to manage while maintaining universal participation.
Sounds like a worthy start to the process of introducing more trustworthyness into Wikipedia entries
It's not, and the reason is that any attempt to introduce more "trustworthiness" into Wikipedia is a waste of time. People distrust Wikipedia because of its most basic, core concept: anyone can contribute. In order to get these people to trust Wikipedia, you'd have to eliminate that core concept. A trust system like this algorithm will just prompt "nay-sayers" to point out how it's not reliable either - and it's not. The more people try to shoehorn trust and reliability into the Wikipedia model, the more criticism it creates because people think Wikipedia is making a claim to reliability that is obviously false. It seems like someone's trying to trick them, and nobody likes that.
In a nutshell, Wikipedia isn't reliable, it's not meant to be, it's not going to be. Get over it and appreciate it for what it is, an often useful community-maintained reference.