We don't actually have any sort of twilight this time of year in Stockholm, even though the sun does go down for about 5½ hours. It gets dark only if it happens to be cloudy between 2200 and 0330.
Not quite the midnight sun thing you hear about (that's further north), but it still takes some getting used to.
You really need some better reading material.
And you're THE ONLY ONE who can see this... right.
3: "Free" music. I'm sure people are happy that all their favorite bands are downloaded, but there are no new bands to replace them. There will not be a Freddie Mercury or groups like Pink Floyd, Nine Inch Nails, or other items. What you listen to in the mainstream is now dictated word for word, and note by note by corporate drones. The same formula for songs is repeated over and over again. Thanks to piracy, a vibrant, expressive form of art is completely dead, with only predigested stuff available now, or amateur hacks with their ironic beards and acoustic guitars crooning about their cat because everyone else is doing exactly that.
Are you sure you were around 20 years ago? Mainstream/formula music has been around since the dawn of commercial audio recording. Blaming its existence on piracy is silly, and just makes you sound like a **AA shill.
No, they're reporting that it ran in the NYT, which is exactly what they're supposed to be doing.
I believe you intended to say "HTML isn't as popular a beverage".
I hate it when poor delivery spoils what would have been a good punch line.
Posts don't get deleted.
By publishing this, Slashdot is damaging its reputation.
Slashdot didn't publish it. The NY Times did.
Wikis are generally where information goes to die, yes.
Nonetheless, Wikipedia does not do badly in some respects.
I don't spend much work time there (except to look stuff up)--haven't made any edits there in a couple of months, but would probably want to do some updates when our next major release comes out later this year.
As for whether I'm any good or not--that's debatable, but I was lucky enough to land on a team with one of the best reputations in the business, and I like to think I know which side the bread's buttered on, so I stick with it.
Since, as part of my job (which includes very flexible hours/locations), I'm encouraged to blog, take part in mailing list/forum discussions, and suchlike, it could be argued that they're paying me for my Wikipedia edits about their product as well.
Dunno why I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate here, but there ya go.
OTOH, I am pretty sure that the folks in Legal would say that I'm definitely not being paid to do marketing or to post inaccurate information.
I guess I could add a disclaimer "I work for SomeMultinational but any material I post here about SomeSoftware reflects my own understanding and views and not necessarily those of my employer" to my user page... or something. <grin/>
Primate predator bands who enjoy a good gossip when taking breaks from throwing shit at each other. Yep, that's us, pretty much.
About a year ago, keeping up with FB started to seem like a bit of a job, ain't nobody paying me to do it, and it has seldom if ever proved all that helpful or useful in ways that couldn't be accomplished via other, less intrusive, less annoying ways.
Those "You have 532 messages" messages keep piling up in my Some Rainy Day... mail folder, and I keep finding other things to do than to log in to read them.
Like Typhoid Mary was "kind of badass"?
I write technical documentation for a specialised and fairly complex software product. There are not many people who are qualified to do so.
Assuming that I stick to the facts, provide citations, and don't attempt to hide the fact of my employment with the producer of this software from anyone, is there some other potential reason why I shouldn't contribute to Wikipedia articles about this product?
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
