Botnets exist because of rational ignorance. For most people, the benefit of having an efficient computer does not outweigh the cost of learning about malware and proper maintenance. How many times have you heard "It does my email and my internet, I don't care"? If there was a financial incentive to keep your computer running efficiently, more (but not all) people would make that effort. I'm sure you're ignorant about some things that malware victims would consider important. Would you like it if they dismissed you as an inherently ignorant person because you didn't take the time to learn something that doesn't really impact the things you care about?

If the transhumanists are right, you may have been born just in time for the really cool stuff.

lol good luck with that

State funding for the arts? (Queue the "BOOOOO!!! Socialism is evil! Taxation is theft and they'll just give it all away to some junkie who throws paint on a wall!")

Are you talking about Mary Beth Sweetland? She isn't dependent on animal-derived insulin; Sweetland uses Humulin, a synthetic human insulin substitute.

Great, another jerk advocating ninjalantism.

RTFA

What's interesting about this is that one can use a take-home test to genetically test someone else without their consent.

The key difference being that entitlement programs actually benefit American citizens, as opposed to the $700000000000+ broken window.

Looks like someone fixed that one already. Please let me know if you see any other bad deletions, though.

I'm absolutely certain I can get informative and relevant images to stay on Wikipedia; Wales was speaking out against porn with no value to Wikimedia projects. If you later find one of these articles, let me know.

One can upload images directly to Wikipedia when they pass Wikipedia standards but not Commons standards. This is most frequently done with fair use images, which are not allowed on Commons. Which Wikipedia articles did you see that had lost informative images? I'll tag them for new ones that pass the no-porn requirement.

Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikimedia Commons, a non-profit media repository with the primary scope of providing educational and informative images and media. Submissions that are low quality or do not fall into Commons' scope may be subject to deletion. One or more of your recent contributions has been identified by another Commons user as a possible image not in Commons' scope. Commons has guidelines on nudity, as a result of already having a large number of photos of genitalia, specifically the male reproductive system and the penis. If you have objections to the proposed deletion of your image(s), please see the links to the relevant deletion discussion(s) (listed above or below this message box). This message is not intended to be taken personally. Thank you for your understanding. --Explodicle


This is a real warning people get for uploading too much cock onto Commons.

It's not an encyclopedia. Wales is discussing Wikimedia Commons, a related but seperate project from Wikipedia. They've already got a whole team of people who debate over what is acceptable or not at Commons:Deletion requests. This isn't about what should or should not be included - porn with no informative purpose is already subject to deletion. What Wales is calling for is a greater effort to reduce them.

You can't just take any comic, especially not the expensive ones. You have to pick from the pre-selected cheap ones.