To be perfectly honest, that's a great way of describing how he feels about homosexuals (or anyone that breaks his heteronormative ideals).
More importantly, though, making an incredibly inane distinction over how much he hates a group of people misdirects readers from the fact that OSC has some incredibly harmful views on society that should not be tolerated.
Ugh. Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it?" that has made America great? Is it so quickly forgotten?
If he's a jerk and he's wrong and you think he's overrated or should be boycotted, you know, go ahead and say so, but "should not be tolerated"? That's the language of "they belong in jail or Siberian labor camps".
> To be perfectly honest, that's a great way of describing how he feels about homosexuals ...
That he is fearful? That he feels the same emotion that one might experience from a giant hairy spider, or cancer, or a bottle of nitroglycerin? Not liking something, or not wanting it to be public policy, does not make someone fearful.
> the fact that OSC has some incredibly harmful views on society that should not be tolerated.
It's a fact that a lot of the homosexual leadership leads lives of debauchery and wanton disregard for consequences. It is not harmful to suggest that perhaps they should not be given free reign to rewrite family and marriage law, nor indoctrinate schoolchildren.
Now this is being discussed in the context of a religious leader (Card) rallying the troops (Mormons). The Mormons are a religion with a fanatical devotion to procreation, children, and families. When a bunch of slick Hollywood queers try to move marriage in the direction of being a frivolous indulgence, the internal Mormon rhetoric is naturally going to run towards the revolutionary. (And it is not idle talk. In a fantasy world where the lunatic wing of the queer movement gets their wishes on marriage laws, Utah probably would secede from the U.S.)
This is a great idea. I've always been more comfortable standing at a kitchen counter or using the adjustable-height computers we (no longer) have behind the genius bar.
I don't get why this is a clever observation in any way. Nothing defines an "age" except the people that happen to be it, so if everyone's "real" behavior is determined by a different permanent age what is left to define the age they actually are?
Cute, I guess, and I know I'm biased towards thinking anything out of Scott Adams' mouth is worth less than the dirt on my shoe due to his proud misogyny, but this reads like an uncomfortable attempt to find an extrinsic reason why he feels alien amongst his peers (and always has, apparently).
To be fair, this is a lot harder to 'fake' - and even if it's not a missile factory specifically, it's clearly a dilapidated factory of some sort and she got some fantastic photos of it.
I'd love to see a translation of this. There's a few shots with her in them that seem like they'd be tough to do with a tripod & timer (though to be fair I am no photographer) so I'm curious who, if anyone, she went in there with and what brought them there in the first place.
It blows my mind that anything has to meet some arbitrary standard of notability in order to have a Wikipedia page. This is the Internet. Encyclopedia Britannica can't have a brief overview on every topic imaginable, because it's got to fit in a bound cover. The freedom to have information about absolutely every subject in existence seems to me the biggest benefit of putting an encyclopedia online, not the fact that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia - obviously, this is not true. Anyone can hypothetically write for Britannica, but only those that pass a certain muster actually do.
The page on notability seems to imply that notability means having sources that don't require original research; which is a reasonable thing to do but probably should have just been put under that rule.
Wikipedia avoids original research for a very good reason: to keep out physics cranks and the like, who would infest WP otherwise.
You're wrong. If Wikipedia didn't have spthese standards then every idiot including myself would be creating pages that are just spam. You know how much I wish I could put my little no-name company on Wikipedia? A lot! But I can't and I'm glad I can't. These standards are why Wikipedia is so well respected.
Now, we all know a Wikipedia page doesn't have the weight of other sources and can be crap at times but so far it's a total class act and it has a lot to do with these policies.
I'm sure you know that Wikipedia has to constantly police itself for large companies trying to mess with competitor's pages and how there are armies of political operatives out there trying to rewrite history through Wikipedia. This is why even experts like the OP are so scrutinized.
The politics are so bad because the stakes are so low... I have a hard time believing that there's any grave risk to throwing open the doors on Wikipedia, simply because not all Wikipedia articles are equal.
I've been on the other end of this. The shitty little start-up I worked on for many years somehow managed to squeak past the finish line of notability and keep its shitty little Wikipedia entry from being deleted (despite the fact that it was mostly written by the marketing department). And you know what kind of difference it made? Absolutely none. To the best of my knowledge, precisely 0.0% of the site's traffic came from the 'external link' in the Wikipedia entry. We got precisely 0 phone calls or emails from potential customers who heard about us on Wikipedia. VCs did not magically dump piles of money on us because we were listed on Wikipedia. Engineering candidates -- even bad engineering candidates -- never spontaneously sent us their resume after reading our Wikipedia entry.
Conversely, given that my startup benefitted not one bit from having a Wikipedia entry, I'm quite confident that if a competitor had wasted 15 minutes of his time to deface our Wikipedia article, it would have hurt us as a business not one lick.
Well that same thing also wouldn't hurt me either but I'm not Coca Cola. That's what I'm talking about. No one cares about small businesses or startups at all. If you're a company that no one even searches for on Google Places this doesn't apply to you.
It is a fact that these things happen and whether it's harmful or not it isn't right and it's the reason for these policies.
> You know how much I wish I could put my little no-name company on Wikipedia? A lot! But I can't and I'm glad I can't. These standards are why Wikipedia is so well respected.
But why? If there's an article about your company in a legitimate publication, I don't see why there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about it. How would it make Wikipedia a less useful or lower-quality resource? Are you saying it would get in the way of finding information about more "notable" subjects? I don't understand how.
Sure, my attitude would make the disambiguation page for "John Smith" much longer, but I think it would still be reasonable as long as it's well-sorted into categories (as it is now).
If there's an article about his company in a legitimate publication, then he can put a page up for his company in Wikipedia. It'd pass the notability requirement and the requirement for verifiable sources.
The problem is that getting rid of the notability requirement would lead to lots of people putting up pages with nothing more than opinion. It wouldn't be spam. It'd be more dangerous than that. It'd be unsourced opinion disguised as factual information.
There's also the fact that Wikipedia is much more of a finite resource than, say, Google. Google has millions of server and a data center staff of thousands, backed up by even more thousands of programmers dedicated to making things run smoothly. Wikipedia is 400-odd servers and a staff of less than a hundred. Opening things up like you say would quickly overload Wikipedia's infrastructure, degrading the encyclopedia for everyone.
> If there's an article about his company in a legitimate publication, then he can put a page up for his company in Wikipedia. It'd pass the notability requirement and the requirement for verifiable sources.
It seemed like the person the blog post was referencing passed that requirement as well, but was deleted.
Except it didn't. As mentioned on the AfD page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...) she was _mentioned_ in a lot of places, but only in passing - there was no real substance talking about why she's so important, she was just quoted as saying something.
If you can refute this, please follow the very clear instructions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instr...) for doing so. For the deletion review to have any chance of succeeding, it _must_ go over some new point that the previous AfD ignored. Giving new references that are specifically about the person in question would probably work. Simply saying "but, but, she's important!!1! :( :( :(", on the other hand, won't go over well.
Can Siri carry on a 'conversation' about one task? For instance, can she/it find a place in Maps then understand a command like "get directions there" to refer to said place? I don't have a 4S to test myself.
Annoyingly, Siri does not have maps support in Canada, so I can't test your example, but the answer in general is 'yes'. If you say, "Set a reminder", Siri will ask what you want it to be, and then will ask you what time it ought to be at. If she mishears your time, you can say, "No, at 9:00 AM", and she'll change the time.
It is impressive technology, but right now, my #1 thing I want Siri to do is understand me all of the time. I find the speech recognition is not as good as I had hoped, and I am frequently repeating myself and trying to enunciate more.
Except there is scarcely a difference between the accent of someone living in Michigan or Ohio or New York and someone living in Ontario - the accents are certainly much closer together than US vs. UK, for example. I just think the speech recognition needs more work.
With this specific example, it doesn't seem like that's the case. The best it can do is give you a list of restaurants based on your speech input, and then ask you to select one with your finger.
To an extent, yes. An example I ran into earlier - if you ask Siri to remind you of something on certain days, it will make an assumption about when to start that recurring reminder (based on how you word your request). I was then curious as to whether an interactive conversation would work, and said 'No, start it tomorrow instead' and it replied pretty naturally, affirming that she would have the reminder start tomorrow instead.
