Anyway, I have better uses of my time than to waste another minute with you.

We knew what was going on when you ran your anti-IBM campaign, sometimes even positioning yourself as arguing on behalf of our community. It was a way to lend credence to IBM and MS arguments during the SCO issue. To state otherwise is deceptive, perhaps even self-deceptive.

Florian, you would not be devoting all of this text to explaining yourself if you didn't feel the need to paint your actions in a positive light. That comes from guilt, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

Go write your app, and if you actually get to make any money with it you can give thanks, because it will happen despite what you worked for previously. Keep a low profile otherwise because your credibility is well and truly blown and you can only make things worse. And maybe someday you can really move past this part of your life. But I am not holding out much hope.

I don't get this.

When I'm watching something I enjoy, either via OTA HD or Netflix, the last thing I'm going to do is "quick! switch to another device!"

Watching a film, documentary or "episode" is much more enjoyable watched in one sitting. If I have to switch to another device I will watch at a later time when my attention isn't split.

Hm....you never watch a movie and have to go to the can?

:)

If anyone thinks that it is a small number of people that drink and drive, take a look at most any parking lot outside any bar in the US>

Do you actually think all those cars are driven by the designated driver? That all those people have only 1 or less drinks?

Those empty lots mean most everyone is driving at some level of impairment. It happens and most people don't get in trouble for it, nor are they serious danger to anyone else on the road.

People naturally drive and meet at bars, they have drinks, they have to get home and they do.

You rarely see a bar parking lot very full after closing time do you?

So you violated the speeding law, based on an assumption about a yellow light time(which varies both per light and electrical fluctuation), thus jeopardizing others. You need to have you drivers license taking away....

By doing what I suggested I do, I actually AM driving with the general road conditions in this area...if you stop at a light that turns yellow, you will be rear ended by at least 2 cars.

The smart thing to do around here is to get your ass through the intersection in the yellow light.

But in general, no...I don't bother looking at the posted speed anywhere unless my radar detector goes off.

I find myself generally going about the same speed as everyone else on the road, perhaps a little faster than some.

While I disagree with the "you should never go through a yellow light" statement, I've got to question your example. Every section of road I've ever seen that has stop lights also has speed limits much less than 60 mph. Usually 40 mph max. If you're going 60 mph down a stretch of road with a 40mph speed limit, then your problem isn't the yellow light.

I dunno where you live, but no one around here really watched the speed limits THAT closely. I often drive 50+ mph on city streets and trust me, I'm not running over people, that is often the general flow of traffic speed around here in parts.

About the only time I look at what speed I'm going is when the radar detector goes off....

ncorrect. When you see light turning yellow, you are suppose to stop when it is safe to do so, otherwise proceed through the intersection.

In New Orleans, and most any other city I've lived in, you can pretty safely assume that it is decidedly UN-safe to hit the brakes on a yellow light, at least when it first turns yellow.

If you do so, you will be rear ended by at least 2 cars minimum.

It's amazing how many people who claim to have a sub 0.4s reaction time suddenly have a 4 second reaction time when faced with a yellow light.

My reaction time is just fine. I know when the light turns yellow, that if I stomp the gas, the turbo will kick in and transport me easily under the lights before they turn red.

When you say "seems" are you to referring to anecdotal comments rather than research?

For an earlier comment here I did a Google Scholar search on the rate of sex-crimes before and after countries changed pornography laws, and some of those studies included changes in the legality of child pornography. It seems that every scientific study found the same result - countries where child pornography became legal experiences a decrease in rates of child molestation, countries where child pornography became illegal experienced an increase in rates of child molestation.

-

Why does that child have a tube up his butt?

-

Comparing different cultures with each other doesn't work, you can't determine weather differences are due to the availability of pornography or to a wide range of other cultural factors.

What you do is compare a single culture with itself, before and after a major change in the availability and content-range of porn. In fact a substantial number of such studies have been done, across a substantial number of countries. The results are consistent. Increases in the availability and content-range of pornography are generally followed by a decrease in rape and other sex crimes, or at worst no change in those rates. This result also extends to a smaller number of country-cases that included child pornography becoming legal. In every such case rape, other sex crimes, and child molestation always decreased. Countries where child pornography changed from legal-to-illegal had increases in child molestation rates.

A Google Scholar search can turn up a variety of such studies. Here are links to one two of them.

Abstract one:
The Danish liberalization of legal prosecution and of laws concerning pornography and the ensuing high availability of such materials present a unique opportunity of testing hypotheses concerning the relationship between pornography and sex offenses. It is shown that concurrently with the increasing availability of pornography there was a significant decrease in the number of sex offenses registered by the police in Copenhagen. On the basis of various investigations, including a survey of public attitudes and studies of the police, it was established that at least in one type of offense (child molestation) the decrease represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed. Various factors suggest that the availability of pornography was the direct cause of this decrease.

Abstract two:
Pornography continues to be a contentious matter with those on the one side arguing it detrimental to society while others argue it is pleasurable to many and a feature of free speech. The advent of the Internet with the ready availability of sexually explicit materials thereon particularly has seemed to raise questions of its influence. Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

I wonder what the world would look like if we had legislators who legislated on the basis of evidence and reality rather than ideologies and soundbites.

-

If you were paying attention, I explained exactly how to prevent an article from being deleted. Include a couple of independent Reliable Sources talking about the topic, saying things that can be used to build an article. Once you have that then primary sources can help expand the article if used properly, but we have rules against articles built solely with primary sources because primary-source-only articles raise a shitton of problems.

What the hell are you ranting about? Not only does Wikipedia have an article on Pokemon, we've got literally hundreds of Pokemon articles. That includes a list of SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETEEN pokemon running up to Number 719: Diancie.

I would personally be delighted if the world got over it's nutty fascination with football. However the fact is that the world does treat football as important, and there does exist an crazy amount of Published sources Taking Note of every minute facet of football. As a Wikipedia Editor I accept it's not my place to delete other people's football contributions based on my opinion of football's level of "importance". If someone complies with Wikipedia policies, if their article satisfies sourcing requirements etc., then I'll either leave the article alone or I'll work to improve it. Hell, some of my most resent edits were fixes to professional Wrestling articles, which I consider about 42 level lower than football in stupidity. Football is a genuine idiotic violent sport, Wrestling is a fake idiotic violent sport. ~~~~

-

So, I see this as rationalization.

The fact is, you took a leadership position, and later turned your coat for reasons that perhaps made sense to you. But they don't really make sense to anyone else. So, yes, everyone who supported you then is going to feel burned.

You also made yourself a paid voice that was often hostile to Free Software, all the way back to the SCO issue. Anyone could have told you that was bound to be a losing side and you would be forever tarred with their brush.

So nobody is going to believe you had any reason but cash, whatever rationalization you cook up after the fact. So, the bottom line is that you joined a list of people who we're never going to be able to trust or put the slightest amount of credibility in.

And ultimately it was for nothing. I've consistently tried to take the high road and it's led to a pretty good income, I would hazard a guess better than yours, not just being able to feel good about myself.