No, you're mistaken. Here's what happened. We used to call projects like this "free" (as in speech) or libre. The problem was that (lay)people confused that concept with gratis (as in beer).
The phrase "open source" was created to solve that problem. Since libre software usually implies that the source is public. The concept was then extended to everything. Now open source really just means available under an open source license, which is defined by the OSI.
You're making the same point RMS made when the phrase "open source" was coined (iirc) in 1998 Netscape went open source. He claims, rightly, that being free is more than having open source.
Not to be pedantic, but not *all* the key commands are at the bottom. Not nearly. Hit ^G to see the real listing of commands (including lots of useful ones not listed at the bottom of the screen).
But yes, nano is nice (and pico on sensible machines is just a symlink to nano).
Mooter is (I think) older than Clusty and also does what you describe. It's not bad either (from the little I have used it in the past). It's just really hard to get any market share with so much competition.
Could the PS3's higher session lengths compared to the other two "next-gen" consoles be explained by a higher proportion of people watching movies on the console (instead of playing actual games)? That would make sense since I know several people who bought the PS3 just to use it as Blu-ray player.
Can your system tell the difference between ISP injected advertisements and spyware injected advertisements? (I'm not sure exactly how your checking for alterations.) If not, you'd have to rely upon finding patterns between ISPs.
I had the exact same problem (the "get more search engines" link is not broken if the install goes correctly). I think it must be the extensions we use or some other weird setup issues. I solved this problem by manually cleaning out all of Firefox's files and reinstalling cold. Works like a charm now (now all of my extensions work).
Still, whatever the problem, I shouldn't have to do that. Mozilla should know better.
You cannot sell Wikipedia. The content is free. The foundation is non-profit. Even if your theory made a modicum of sense, the community would simply leave if he "sold it" and thus it would be worth nothing to Google or Yahoo. *mumble* *grumble*
You're looking in the wrong places.
Old works fall into the public domain 70 years after the author's death (in the US that is). Remember that translations are new and original works and so they might not be in the public domain. Just read Wikipedia's article.
A solution to your troubles is already in the works and thus the money can be safely placed elsewhere. Currently the developers are working on an embedded-media implementation of ogg theora. You can read more about the development effort at media-wiki.
Yep, MPL==Mozilla Public License. The MPL is incompatible with the GPL because MPL'd code can be combined with proprietary code. FSF says that MPL has "some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL." To get around this potential problem, Mozilla licenses all of their code under the MPL, GPL and LGPL (a so called tri-license).
See MPL for more details.
I wonder why Schilling doesn't just dual-license? (I did RFTA)
I didn't follow your link, but the short passage you provided is utter bullderdash.
(Full disclosure, I am an admin on Wikipdedia).
First off, consensus is actually a higher standard than majority (don't believe me? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus). In fact consensus usually implies a super-majority (although a measure of subjectivity is available to account for pile-on-voting, uninformed voters, quality of arguments and common-sense). Nothing is ever deleted when there is not *at least* 50% support for deletion (and in marginal cases, up to 60%, things are usually kept as "no consensus"). Oh yeah, if you don't like how something was deleted we have the VfU (votes for undeletion page) to help stop rogue admins. Yes, there will be some improper deletions, but a good system is in place to help stop them. (And what was with that eminent domain metaphor?)
There is no page called, "Miscellany For Delete" the page he is talking about is "Miscellany for deletion" (shows what kind of research he did). Describing MfD as "and what this means is you can
actually reach consensus on what other people on Wikipedia are allowed to
do." is (and I am being nice) horse shit. Why not read the page's description of itself, "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace." What does that mean? It means that it is the same thing as RfD (requests for deletion, the main deletion page) except for pages that are in the Wikipedia namespace (project pages). What's being discussed now? Some portals (alternate main pages) that are overly specific (RuneScape portal?), some poorly maintained and old pages and some people's mistakes. There are something like 15 items to be deleted currently. The page is entirely innocuous.
Finally, the person wrote "It is also possible to vote for the adding and deletion of
administrators". This comment is ridiculous. Would you prefer that Jimbo appoint the admins? Would that make things more fair? Also, we don't vote to remove (delete?) admins. I think de-admining has happened once (maybe twice or thrice, I'm not sure) and it was by the elected Arbitration Committee (to be fair a few of the members were appointed in a confirmation style system, think the US Supreme Court nominees).
So, yeah...the only thing wrong here is that your comment was modded down. Sorry about that, but you don't have to turn it into a conspiracy.
Fair question. Redirects (that is pages which are only alternate spellings) aren't included in the count. Nor are very very short articles (stubs are counted though). This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dantheox/Stub_p ercentages) page does the math concerning the percent of articles in Wikipedia that are stubs. Granted, it's a bit dated, but at the end of last year 35% of all articles were stubs. What percent of Encarta or EB articles are stubs?
2) Articles are supposed to grow to about 35kB (rough estimate). After that an article is split should be split into subpages (History oft he United States, Economy of the United States, etc.) The amount of information on one topic is unlimited as long as each fact is notable and verifiable (broadly defined). More content isn't bad as long as the details are on subpages and the main article gives a reasonably detailed account of the subject.
Yeah I don't know how to make the links correctly (can I just use HTML?).
Whether he was breaking trademark laws is only decided in a courtroom. Both sides would have decent arguments and I could see the case going either way. The issue is that Microsoft believes that its trademark is being violated (they aren't lying that is really what they think). The guy should have realized that Microsoft's perspective on trademark laws would be different than a judge's or his own.
Things would have been bad if he had decided to challenge Microsoft so unless Microsoft made a money offer to begin with he wasn't to get much. The guy wouldn't have had the money to fight Microsoft's lawyers so both sides would have lost barrels of money to the tort system. Did he really lose that much by chaning his product's name?
TFA quotes 150 decibels. Anyone know at what ranges it can emit noises at the volume level. I'd guess that the volume drops off pretty quickly over distances.
Even if you had notified "them" (I assume you mean the admins) the article wouldn't have been protected preemptively. Only if the article receives a lot of vandalism will it be protected. Looking at the history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steganog raphy&action=history,
the vandalism isn't too bad yet. If every time some refers to wikipedia an article has to be protected, then wikipedia has some serious problems in its future.
Slashdot Mirror
They made a movie about him http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110074/
Seriously. It's not that hard. Practice.
Base e, really? You should look at it in base pi. That fraction terminates real fast.
No, you're mistaken. Here's what happened. We used to call projects like this "free" (as in speech) or libre. The problem was that (lay)people confused that concept with gratis (as in beer).
The phrase "open source" was created to solve that problem. Since libre software usually implies that the source is public. The concept was then extended to everything. Now open source really just means available under an open source license, which is defined by the OSI.
You're making the same point RMS made when the phrase "open source" was coined (iirc) in 1998 Netscape went open source. He claims, rightly, that being free is more than having open source.
Not wrong terminology, changing terminology.
Not to be pedantic, but not *all* the key commands are at the bottom. Not nearly. Hit ^G to see the real listing of commands (including lots of useful ones not listed at the bottom of the screen). But yes, nano is nice (and pico on sensible machines is just a symlink to nano).
Mooter is (I think) older than Clusty and also does what you describe. It's not bad either (from the little I have used it in the past). It's just really hard to get any market share with so much competition.
Could the PS3's higher session lengths compared to the other two "next-gen" consoles be explained by a higher proportion of people watching movies on the console (instead of playing actual games)? That would make sense since I know several people who bought the PS3 just to use it as Blu-ray player.
Can your system tell the difference between ISP injected advertisements and spyware injected advertisements? (I'm not sure exactly how your checking for alterations.) If not, you'd have to rely upon finding patterns between ISPs.
Is it just me or does this "new" system look a lot like the control system employed by Emacs (and even vi), but with a colorful overlay?
I had the exact same problem (the "get more search engines" link is not broken if the install goes correctly). I think it must be the extensions we use or some other weird setup issues. I solved this problem by manually cleaning out all of Firefox's files and reinstalling cold. Works like a charm now (now all of my extensions work).
Still, whatever the problem, I shouldn't have to do that. Mozilla should know better.
You cannot sell Wikipedia. The content is free. The foundation is non-profit. Even if your theory made a modicum of sense, the community would simply leave if he "sold it" and thus it would be worth nothing to Google or Yahoo.
*mumble*
*grumble*
You're looking in the wrong places.
Old works fall into the public domain 70 years after the author's death (in the US that is). Remember that translations are new and original works and so they might not be in the public domain. Just read Wikipedia's article.
A solution to your troubles is already in the works and thus the money can be safely placed elsewhere. Currently the developers are working on an embedded-media implementation of ogg theora. You can read more about the development effort at media-wiki.
Yep, MPL==Mozilla Public License. The MPL is incompatible with the GPL because MPL'd code can be combined with proprietary code. FSF says that MPL has "some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL." To get around this potential problem, Mozilla licenses all of their code under the MPL, GPL and LGPL (a so called tri-license).
See MPL for more details.
I wonder why Schilling doesn't just dual-license? (I did RFTA)
(Full disclosure, I am an admin on Wikipdedia).
First off, consensus is actually a higher standard than majority (don't believe me? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus). In fact consensus usually implies a super-majority (although a measure of subjectivity is available to account for pile-on-voting, uninformed voters, quality of arguments and common-sense). Nothing is ever deleted when there is not *at least* 50% support for deletion (and in marginal cases, up to 60%, things are usually kept as "no consensus"). Oh yeah, if you don't like how something was deleted we have the VfU (votes for undeletion page) to help stop rogue admins. Yes, there will be some improper deletions, but a good system is in place to help stop them. (And what was with that eminent domain metaphor?)
There is no page called, "Miscellany For Delete" the page he is talking about is "Miscellany for deletion" (shows what kind of research he did). Describing MfD as "and what this means is you can actually reach consensus on what other people on Wikipedia are allowed to do." is (and I am being nice) horse shit. Why not read the page's description of itself, "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace." What does that mean? It means that it is the same thing as RfD (requests for deletion, the main deletion page) except for pages that are in the Wikipedia namespace (project pages). What's being discussed now? Some portals (alternate main pages) that are overly specific (RuneScape portal?), some poorly maintained and old pages and some people's mistakes. There are something like 15 items to be deleted currently. The page is entirely innocuous.
Finally, the person wrote "It is also possible to vote for the adding and deletion of administrators". This comment is ridiculous. Would you prefer that Jimbo appoint the admins? Would that make things more fair? Also, we don't vote to remove (delete?) admins. I think de-admining has happened once (maybe twice or thrice, I'm not sure) and it was by the elected Arbitration Committee (to be fair a few of the members were appointed in a confirmation style system, think the US Supreme Court nominees).
So, yeah...the only thing wrong here is that your comment was modded down. Sorry about that, but you don't have to turn it into a conspiracy.
According to the size comparisons page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_compa risons) Wikipedia's articles are on average half the size of EB's (but I'm not sure how up to date that is). Some graphs of the number of words per article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_per_ article) may be enlightening.
2) Articles are supposed to grow to about 35kB (rough estimate). After that an article is split should be split into subpages (History oft he United States, Economy of the United States, etc.) The amount of information on one topic is unlimited as long as each fact is notable and verifiable (broadly defined). More content isn't bad as long as the details are on subpages and the main article gives a reasonably detailed account of the subject.
Yeah I don't know how to make the links correctly (can I just use HTML?).
This is seperate and unrelated.
Whether he was breaking trademark laws is only decided in a courtroom. Both sides would have decent arguments and I could see the case going either way. The issue is that Microsoft believes that its trademark is being violated (they aren't lying that is really what they think). The guy should have realized that Microsoft's perspective on trademark laws would be different than a judge's or his own. Things would have been bad if he had decided to challenge Microsoft so unless Microsoft made a money offer to begin with he wasn't to get much. The guy wouldn't have had the money to fight Microsoft's lawyers so both sides would have lost barrels of money to the tort system. Did he really lose that much by chaning his product's name?
TFA quotes 150 decibels. Anyone know at what ranges it can emit noises at the volume level. I'd guess that the volume drops off pretty quickly over distances.
--Robert Davie
Even if you had notified "them" (I assume you mean the admins) the article wouldn't have been protected preemptively. Only if the article receives a lot of vandalism will it be protected. Looking at the history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steganog raphy&action=history,
the vandalism isn't too bad yet. If every time some refers to wikipedia an article has to be protected, then wikipedia has some serious problems in its future.
Only if they told people to murder (or condoned the murder of) their friends.