Do you have a specific link? Because the ones I saw basically said that Google is taking legal advantage of the Open part of Open Street Map.

Again, I submit data to an Open platform, and some asshole decides to Open the platform.

Is this not allowed? If not, could you post something more relevant?

That's funny, you don't sound like Chaucer.

Are you a gay girl or a knave girl? Because you are obviously a girl.

Unless maybe language changes due to usage, which is exactly what happens.

Eat a dick, kill yourself, stop being stupid. Choose at least one, and preferably 3 or more.

Not clear in the sibling comments is that word has its own diff, in the revision area. The differences show as tracked changes.

Obviously not a solution here, but it seems lots of people aren't aware of it.

I added streets to osm and google maps had the data a few weeks later. I know it my osm data because I didn't know one street name, left it as the initial unique identifier, and that's what showed up.

I assume google has a priority list, and uses navteq or the other atlas whatever before osm data, if present. If not, use osm.

Isn't further comment supposed to come from us, the commentators?

The reaction you have about hypotheticals is largely irrelevant, since you mention posters and readers here. No matter what, someone is going to post something insanely stupid, and someone else is going to moderate it positively. It happens on nearly every story, unless it is just not interesting at all to anyone. Then we get at least 40 comments all sucking each others' dicks.

So post some facts yourself, or fuck yourself sideways with a rusty rake. Do you have a point, or are you going to just talk to yourself for a good long while? What is your objection here, to this specific story?

The study was by a woman (and her team I assume) looking at comments about her previous study about how society views gender. The conclusion was that men discriminate and women feel discriminated against.

She looked at these comments, attempting to determine if the commentator was male or female, and broadly classify the comment's content as accepting or dismissing the conclusion.

I get a really strong sense of selection bias (self selection), and the author generally taking the position that the original study's conclusion is true. While I don't dispute that, it seems really easy to make a mistake when classifying comments directed at your work, and therefore being very personal, and possibly making bad decisions about methodology.

I can in no way support this study, even though its conclusions are fairly obviously correct.

I have always understood it to be an external observation. A seemingly normal person plus anonymity can appear to be a total fuckwad. That obviates any jekyll-and-hyde personality change.

In other words, almost exactly your last sentence.

It also represents the case where someone who is only a partial fuckwad in real life appears "normal" in person and as a complete fuckwad on the internet. That is a more typical scenario, given that the number of partial fuckwards is on a sliding scale, and only a few of those are the total fuckwads. And you dis say "was a fuckwad" instead of "was a total fuckwad".

Given that presumption, anonymity exacerbates the fuckwad's fuckwadity, rather than simply uncovering it as you suggest, which is the point.

That's the whole point - you have your own unqualified opinion, and everyone else (the statistical "everyone") operates using the opposite as being an unstated assumption.

When you say "everyone is a medical expert", I understand you to mean that people assert the things they understand and hold true, regardless of whether it has any basis or has been debunked. And if I look at SystemD comments, as in a sibling post, it's a bunch of sound bites that are really just fronts for the opinion "I disagree".

And, of course, it all boils down to a person's feeling that what they believe is true, is true. Men in this study do not acknowledge a bias and women do, men believe that gender role division is a natural outcome and women do not. And, so many people here can't believe that the default state is something other than scepticism - because that's how their understanding of the world works.

And changing these understandings and behaviors is like farting in a hurricane.

In conclusion, QI has not yet located compelling evidence that Henry Ford is responsible for this quotation. The expression of the concept underlying the saying apparently evolved over a period of decades with an initial cite by 1930. The record is still incomplete, so it is best to view this post as a snapshot of the most salient evidence known to QI.

That's what your link says, not "he never said it".

And then you say that it's important to be accurate.

And then two morons moderate you positively.

Is it any wonder I created a username solely to tell people they are wrong and should not ever post anything on the internet until they are old enough?

There were 6 paragraphs prior to that quote that explain why. You can disagree with it, but "why" is answered, and the case is certainly made for the meaning that people commonly use, which isn't exactly every single person.

Here's an example, the sentence right before the one that was quoted:

If someone in marketing or finance or HR has an idea for a new app, they should be able to take matters in their own hands.

No, that's the worst idea ever. There's a reason we have change control in a nearly infinite possibility of combinations, and there are plenty of other things wrong that I'm sure you can identify.

If you want me to keep thinking for you, keep being an idiot. No, wait, then I'll have to uphold my end of the bargain. Just stop posting until you have something to contribute.

That sounds like something diceslot would do. Well, obviously wouldn't, but would, you know what I mean.

And hell no, that's a nice rake. I've been keeping it very rusty, just for one specific asshole. I don't know if you have tried to maintain a rusty rake, but believe me, it is almost a full time job making sure that rake is rusty enough, and that the handle won't jut break off wherever it feels it might want to. The handle must be disciplined.

I'd actually like to know how best to discipline a rusty rake handle, if it were from a frequent contributor. Since you disclaim being a frequent contributor, you opinion is invalid, and your rake is not yours.

Still, hugs.

It this were FOIA, I'd defend you. But no, it's not. It's about Jeb releasing mails to Jeb.

"Mails to Jeb released in response to FOIA" is a FUCKTON different from "Jeb releases everything for apparently no real reason."

FOIA has a protocol to classify or hide information as appropriate. Jeb does not have such a protocol.

Your idiotic post said that Jeb = FOIA, and you should be kicked in the gender-specific gonads or, lacking those, appropriately burned in strategic places for suggesting such.

FOIA is a risk that people who communicate with their elected, or otherwise, official, take. Jeb deciding to repeat everything, verbatim, available to spammers and citizen vigilantes, without any relevant FOIA request, is a completely different thing. It's a completely different fucking ballpark.

"Aint no f*ckin' ballpark neither. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin' his wife's feet and stickin your tongue in the holiest of holies aint the same f*ckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same f*ckin' sport. Look, foot massages don't mean shit."

I'm rooting for the American voter. Who are you rooting for?

It was promised as an anonymous, unbreakable, encryption-based currency. And for a while, it was exactly that.

I'm old enough to remember Flooz commercials. Turn money into e-Money, and it's transferable and spendable in bits.

Let's take PayPal as an example. Lots of people accept and spend PayPal money, without ever cashing out as dollars. I know you can argue otherwise, but at its most basic, it is the same thing.

Unless you consider that this particular exchange was particularly suspicious, given signals from previous exchanges which were reputable and still failed. This paragraph is subjective.

Put a middleman in between my BTC and someone else's? Good idea. Put a reputable middleman there? Better idea. Replace middleman with PayPal? Let's go back a bit.

Remember when people could not get money out of PayPal? When accounts could be frozen and your only recourse was to whine like a bitch on the precursors to Consumerist and blogs in general?

If not, you're not old enough. It didn't work well at first for a minority, a large minority, but it is stable and owned by a big responsible entity now.

In summary, the same mindset that brought success to PayPal also brought success to these charlatans. Charlatans were assisted by the intrusions into privacy.

Should they? No. Does anyone now? Fewer. But there's a sucker born any minute. And privacy intrusion contributes more to the ignorant's readiness to risk than any blog post or business plan possibly could.

Is this Bennett Hasselton's alt? Because when I think "shut down slashdot because of one user" I naturally leap to a conclusion.

If not, sorry weedman for accusing you of supernatural ignorance. Seriously, I apologise mary jane sir for suggesting super-universal dorkmanitude, if it is not appropriate.

If I am right, however, I will gladly mail you a rusty rake with which to fuck yourself sideways.

Again, if it is my error, keifbrother, I humbly genuflect and beg forgiveness.