Nah, you misunderstand Decatur, which is actually part of Atlanta. Decatur disagrees with this notion despite being inside the perimeter, and therefore this is merely one of a number of attempts to be "different" and to distinguish itself as the odd child out-- which it's been trying to do pretty much since being the only town in Georgia to vote against secession during the civil war.
There are even more technological oddities in Decatur that make people want to become Amish, for instance pay parking that requires text messaging to use.
Given that many Americans are completely unaware of what Roe Versus Wade is, who the president is at any given time, or how many justices sit on the supreme court, this result is not terribly shocking. It's easy to pick on Texas but It's sort of silly. All you've discovered is that a more rural state is about 10% off of the mainstream.
That last master (Sims) would make a great doctor. Plus there's history of time lords regenerating into people they've seen before. At least Romana did.
The G1 doesn't work as a phone. Why would people buy it? T-Mobile excluded UMA aka t-mobile at home from the G1, effectively making it a paperweight in most suburbs. Combine that with the unattractive price point and the fact that many people who would be interested in this device are currently shackled to the iPhone and you've got a product nobody can use or wants to buy.
Ok, so he managed to make dicking around on the internet fit into his job description, and there happens to be someone working in government who has nothing better to do with their time than troll the internet. Not that there isn't someone like that in more or less every office on earth with an internet link. How scandalous.
I would be hard pressed to call editing wikipedia articles to favor oneself "conducting a propaganda campaign", much in the same way that I would feel awkward referring to updating my blog as a press release.
I'm not a wikidolt so I obviously didn't read through whatever wikipolitics they're going through in their wikidrama, but an argument over whether or not to include a proof seems pretty silly. The question of whether or not a proof is correct is a silly question because Wikipedia decided a long time ago to not include original research, so they should never actually have to verify any. You also don't have to consider whether or not a proof is too long, because space shouldn't become a concern for any article that unpaid volunteers are willing to insert.
It seems like you'd just have to step back a minute and say
a) Is the source of the proof reputable? b) Is the proof in the public domain?
If so, great, if not, delete.
This is however a pretty good example of why Wikipedia must ultimately fail at being the go to source for everything. While Wikipedia's design is great for creating an encyclopedia with various articles on culture, politics, regions, species, and other things that you can pigeonhole into relatively tight informational constraints, it is utterly useless once you want to go beyond scratching the surface in any particular discipline.
Overall, the wiki-effort would be better spent creating spaces for more specialized types of information, such as mathematical proofs and semi-research, as opposed to having endless cycles of subjective debates about notability.
Take a look at perlmonks.org, which is a pretty great example of how you can modify the everything engine to focus on a very specific subset of information.
Wikipedia is a case study example of the inverse of Tycho's xbox live hypothesis. While internet + anonymity + microphone = idiot, it turns out that internet + hits + glimmer of respectability = gigantic ego.
The net wikiresult is that the things that a lot of us used to look at wikipedia for have either been deleted or are facing deletion because of people who are doing SOMETHING IMPORTANT on the wikinet, we foolish mortals who just want an extra three paragraphs in plot summaries or the release date of some obscure game simply can't understand the wikigreatness of what wikipedia is.:(
I'm somehow missing why exactly Sierra is someone anyone would want to make death threats to. She co wrote some Java books? She likes emacs more than vi?
If I have it straight it seems to be like this
1. Female writes books, makes blog 2. Female happens to be mildly attractive 3. Unnamed individuals on intrawebs want to make fun of her because x? 4. Death threats 5. ????? 6. Litigation!
It was a pretty big deal in terms of the gaming industry simply because it made it pretty easy if you had to pick a day of the week to blow your advertising wad. What other time of the week can you believe that there are at least 100k gamers surfing the web, not playing a game, and in contact with their social network to spread the word of some cool beta/game/etc. ?
There's a strong tendency among geeks and technology buffs to want to see e-voting, but I can't really figure out why. It's completely unnecessary and the proposed advantages of e-voting are precisely what make it unattractive. We like our voting mechanisms to have physical evidence that we actually did vote. We need it to be capable of being analyzed and understood by someone with a minimum of technical knowhow as an exigency of the fact that volunteers work polls, etc.
Essentially, we need to rethink the paper ballot, not think past it.
TBH i've been selling you people travel packages for years and i just don't get Canadians.
1. What's so freaking great about Niagra falls, and why the heck do you want to go to the American side? 2. Why can't you ever hang up the stupid phone when you don't want to talk anymore?
Were you born during the 90's or something? I only ask because you seem to have completely missed what happened during the 80's. The MADD campaign? Ronald Reagan? Are you completely unaware that we no longer even have qualms about executing people who are mentally insane or retarded, let alone intoxicated at the time of their crimes? Are you a Libertarian completely unaware of drug laws? 3 strikes and you're out?
We don't even let people off in extreme cases such as the one you cited. =p
Pretty good. It's been working for quite some time really. I don't really know how someone can get to be so smashed and out of control that you don't want to serve them liquor and simultaneously they somehow don't break any other law except perhaps public intoxication. Clearly British drunks have reached a level of uncanny and clever shenanniganism that a finger print system is simply no match for.
Well it does raise interesting questions that are right up slashdots alley as well as providing a modicum of humor vis a vis the spelling of determeintienereminable. I don't really know about most of/. but I am interested in how comprehensive reports are made, how information is gleaned from databases to generate a report like the 9/11 report, and in what ways data collection may fail to provide all useful information.
Either way I think that intelligence collection and filtering thereof is more or less right up slashdot's alley and if it wasn't CmdrTaco can post stories about HOWTO paint china dolls for all I care; it's his site.
Well, I too have done what you might call extensive research on this subject, specifically for the purpose of analysis and to pontificate on better anti-pornography and anti-piracy methods.
I should rather comment on its location via how one might come across it rather than specific locales per se, seeing as Cmdrtaco would probably disapprove if I were to say, directly link kiddie porn from slashdot.
A few reasonable methods exist for one who is not looking for it to come across it.
Firstly, if one uses usenet and they are searching for relatively softcore photography of pure nudes, then they might come across some of the fairly well trafficked nudist groups. As it would happen, nudists are not only proud of themselves being nude, but about being nude with their children, being nude with their children at weddings, being nude with their children at picnics, and so forth. Of course, I suppose the pornographic connoisseur might never come across it after he or she quickly realized that those who go nude all the time are the people whom you would prefer had their clothes literally grafted onto their bodies. As it would so happen my sociological delving into the world of the nudist colony stopped roughly there, it is a shameful place and frankly I will never show my ankles in public again, having learned this lesson.
I would say that usenet also accounts for the vast majority of unsolicited child pornography in places where one does not expect to find it, almost regardless of what usegroup one is to use. Of course, the surest method for avoiding it is to use an online tool such as google groups which does not cache the non-text data placed on usenet. An interesting pro-tip, as pointed out in the article linked, is that Agag (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) seeks only the domain and such of what you access, so if one was to navigate by means of some reasonable proxy it is likely that the sort of incriminating evidence about yourself that AGAG seeks would not be culled from your ISP.
Secondly, bittorrent portals can facilitate this sort of thing among those who actually do look for child pornography, in addition to pretty much every other sort of pornography anyone on earth could possibly be interested in.
To answer your question more bluntly, no, I do not think that child pornography is a statistical blip. I rather assert that it exists and in large quantities.
I wouldn't call outlawing porn un-american. Outlawing various things for no really good reason is honestly a quite American thing to do, it's also a very Puritan thing to do; the puritanical streak runs pretty deep in America, far deeper than in Europe or Asia. After all, we practically reinvented the witch trial.
McCarthy, National Democratic Convention '68, the villification of Carter for amnesty, Haymarket Square, Red Scare, the stasi of Mississippi that enforced Jim Crow, Government Records on MLK, prohibition, etc.
I don't want to be rude but comon man, you don't get more American than American History.
Slashdot Mirror
get out newbie
I think it's actually more significant that it was not 'large'; it was almost an accidental targeted attack.
I mean, sure, 1% is a lot depending on how you want to look at it.
Nah, you misunderstand Decatur, which is actually part of Atlanta. Decatur disagrees with this notion despite being inside the perimeter, and therefore this is merely one of a number of attempts to be "different" and to distinguish itself as the odd child out-- which it's been trying to do pretty much since being the only town in Georgia to vote against secession during the civil war.
There are even more technological oddities in Decatur that make people want to become Amish, for instance pay parking that requires text messaging to use.
Given that many Americans are completely unaware of what Roe Versus Wade is, who the president is at any given time, or how many justices sit on the supreme court, this result is not terribly shocking. It's easy to pick on Texas but It's sort of silly. All you've discovered is that a more rural state is about 10% off of the mainstream.
That last master (Sims) would make a great doctor. Plus there's history of time lords regenerating into people they've seen before. At least Romana did.
The G1 doesn't work as a phone. Why would people buy it? T-Mobile excluded UMA aka t-mobile at home from the G1, effectively making it a paperweight in most suburbs. Combine that with the unattractive price point and the fact that many people who would be interested in this device are currently shackled to the iPhone and you've got a product nobody can use or wants to buy.
Ok, so he managed to make dicking around on the internet fit into his job description, and there happens to be someone working in government who has nothing better to do with their time than troll the internet. Not that there isn't someone like that in more or less every office on earth with an internet link. How scandalous.
I would be hard pressed to call editing wikipedia articles to favor oneself "conducting a propaganda campaign", much in the same way that I would feel awkward referring to updating my blog as a press release.
I'm not a wikidolt so I obviously didn't read through whatever wikipolitics they're going through in their wikidrama, but an argument over whether or not to include a proof seems pretty silly. The question of whether or not a proof is correct is a silly question because Wikipedia decided a long time ago to not include original research, so they should never actually have to verify any. You also don't have to consider whether or not a proof is too long, because space shouldn't become a concern for any article that unpaid volunteers are willing to insert.
It seems like you'd just have to step back a minute and say
a) Is the source of the proof reputable?
b) Is the proof in the public domain?
If so, great, if not, delete.
This is however a pretty good example of why Wikipedia must ultimately fail at being the go to source for everything. While Wikipedia's design is great for creating an encyclopedia with various articles on culture, politics, regions, species, and other things that you can pigeonhole into relatively tight informational constraints, it is utterly useless once you want to go beyond scratching the surface in any particular discipline.
Overall, the wiki-effort would be better spent creating spaces for more specialized types of information, such as mathematical proofs and semi-research, as opposed to having endless cycles of subjective debates about notability.
Take a look at perlmonks.org, which is a pretty great example of how you can modify the everything engine to focus on a very specific subset of information.
Wikipedia is a case study example of the inverse of Tycho's xbox live hypothesis. While internet + anonymity + microphone = idiot, it turns out that internet + hits + glimmer of respectability = gigantic ego.
:(
The net wikiresult is that the things that a lot of us used to look at wikipedia for have either been deleted or are facing deletion because of people who are doing SOMETHING IMPORTANT on the wikinet, we foolish mortals who just want an extra three paragraphs in plot summaries or the release date of some obscure game simply can't understand the wikigreatness of what wikipedia is.
Don't they make the food for most restauraunts???
Step 1: prove to me your computer is not a lemon
Step 2: give me financing
Step 3: profit
No. You're too dumb to figure out my email, sorry.
I'm somehow missing why exactly Sierra is someone anyone would want to make death threats to. She co wrote some Java books? She likes emacs more than vi?
If I have it straight it seems to be like this
1. Female writes books, makes blog
2. Female happens to be mildly attractive
3. Unnamed individuals on intrawebs want to make fun of her because x?
4. Death threats
5. ?????
6. Litigation!
Remember when Viacom tried to buy cool with MTV?
It was a pretty big deal in terms of the gaming industry simply because it made it pretty easy if you had to pick a day of the week to blow your advertising wad. What other time of the week can you believe that there are at least 100k gamers surfing the web, not playing a game, and in contact with their social network to spread the word of some cool beta/game/etc. ?
There's a strong tendency among geeks and technology buffs to want to see e-voting, but I can't really figure out why. It's completely unnecessary and the proposed advantages of e-voting are precisely what make it unattractive. We like our voting mechanisms to have physical evidence that we actually did vote. We need it to be capable of being analyzed and understood by someone with a minimum of technical knowhow as an exigency of the fact that volunteers work polls, etc.
Essentially, we need to rethink the paper ballot, not think past it.
TBH i've been selling you people travel packages for years and i just don't get Canadians.
1. What's so freaking great about Niagra falls, and why the heck do you want to go to the American side?
2. Why can't you ever hang up the stupid phone when you don't want to talk anymore?
Were you born during the 90's or something? I only ask because you seem to have completely missed what happened during the 80's. The MADD campaign? Ronald Reagan? Are you completely unaware that we no longer even have qualms about executing people who are mentally insane or retarded, let alone intoxicated at the time of their crimes? Are you a Libertarian completely unaware of drug laws? 3 strikes and you're out?
We don't even let people off in extreme cases such as the one you cited. =p
Pretty good. It's been working for quite some time really. I don't really know how someone can get to be so smashed and out of control that you don't want to serve them liquor and simultaneously they somehow don't break any other law except perhaps public intoxication. Clearly British drunks have reached a level of uncanny and clever shenanniganism that a finger print system is simply no match for.
Well if they would just loosen up and get completely smashed now and then they might end up with a more spirited perspective on our great nation.
In the united states we also have a system of reducing the effects of alcohol related violence. We call it prison.
Well it does raise interesting questions that are right up slashdots alley as well as providing a modicum of humor vis a vis the spelling of determeintienereminable. I don't really know about most of /. but I am interested in how comprehensive reports are made, how information is gleaned from databases to generate a report like the 9/11 report, and in what ways data collection may fail to provide all useful information.
Either way I think that intelligence collection and filtering thereof is more or less right up slashdot's alley and if it wasn't CmdrTaco can post stories about HOWTO paint china dolls for all I care; it's his site.
Well, I too have done what you might call extensive research on this subject, specifically for the purpose of analysis and to pontificate on better anti-pornography and anti-piracy methods.
I should rather comment on its location via how one might come across it rather than specific locales per se, seeing as Cmdrtaco would probably disapprove if I were to say, directly link kiddie porn from slashdot.
A few reasonable methods exist for one who is not looking for it to come across it.
Firstly, if one uses usenet and they are searching for relatively softcore photography of pure nudes, then they might come across some of the fairly well trafficked nudist groups. As it would happen, nudists are not only proud of themselves being nude, but about being nude with their children, being nude with their children at weddings, being nude with their children at picnics, and so forth. Of course, I suppose the pornographic connoisseur might never come across it after he or she quickly realized that those who go nude all the time are the people whom you would prefer had their clothes literally grafted onto their bodies. As it would so happen my sociological delving into the world of the nudist colony stopped roughly there, it is a shameful place and frankly I will never show my ankles in public again, having learned this lesson.
I would say that usenet also accounts for the vast majority of unsolicited child pornography in places where one does not expect to find it, almost regardless of what usegroup one is to use. Of course, the surest method for avoiding it is to use an online tool such as google groups which does not cache the non-text data placed on usenet. An interesting pro-tip, as pointed out in the article linked, is that Agag (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) seeks only the domain and such of what you access, so if one was to navigate by means of some reasonable proxy it is likely that the sort of incriminating evidence about yourself that AGAG seeks would not be culled from your ISP.
Secondly, bittorrent portals can facilitate this sort of thing among those who actually do look for child pornography, in addition to pretty much every other sort of pornography anyone on earth could possibly be interested in.
To answer your question more bluntly, no, I do not think that child pornography is a statistical blip. I rather assert that it exists and in large quantities.
I wouldn't call outlawing porn un-american. Outlawing various things for no really good reason is honestly a quite American thing to do, it's also a very Puritan thing to do; the puritanical streak runs pretty deep in America, far deeper than in Europe or Asia. After all, we practically reinvented the witch trial.
McCarthy, National Democratic Convention '68, the villification of Carter for amnesty, Haymarket Square, Red Scare, the stasi of Mississippi that enforced Jim Crow, Government Records on MLK, prohibition, etc.
I don't want to be rude but comon man, you don't get more American than American History.