Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Deleted from the Internet Archive? (Score 4, Informative) 234

by flimflammer (#45415095) Attached to: Britain's Conservatives Scrub Speeches from the Internet

No, they put robots.txt on their website and the Internet Archive respects robots.txt retroactively. If they had 20 years worth of data archived from one domain, and someone puts a robots.txt on the domain, all 20 years worth of data is removed from the archive. Whether it's actually deleted or hidden is unknown, but I hope it isn't deleted.

Comment: Re:Cheats, not wins (Score 1) 114

I don't understand this rationale at all. It's not cheating, it's just better than you are. Is it cheating that Deep Blue can beat world chess champions because it can successfully counter world chess champion strategies?

If cyborgs existed, would they all be cheaters because they could naturally do what was done in the video?

Are humans who are gifted with unnaturally good reflexes cheaters because their abilities deviate beyond what we might consider "normal"?

Then again, I guess it is human nature to drop the cheating card when they lose.

Comment: Re:Mozilla is not free (Score 1) 173

by flimflammer (#45350773) Attached to: Mozilla Backtracks On Third-Party Cookie Blocking

I don't really understand the problem people have with Wikipedia's method of funding. Begging so a free service can remain free without advertisers since apparently as I've heard parroted over and over again, having ads on Wikipedia would somehow compromise everything it stands for? So what?

Comment: Re: Why are important drugs single source? (Score 1) 1160

Economies of scale. Having this single source is the most economically viable option for this particular cheap but costly to manufacture drug. Building and maintaining the laboratories needed to generate this stuff is not cheap and not worth the cost it would require.

Comment: Re:Unfriendly Elitists (Score 2) 372

by flimflammer (#45215389) Attached to: Wikipedia's Participation Problem

Being modded down on slashdot isn't the same thing at all. The "offending" comments are all still there and easily accessed. Finding dissenting opinions on Wikipedia is a lot more involved, requiring you to iterate through the article history comparing the past and present for differences.

Hell, I view slashdot at -1 just so I don't miss comments that shied too far away from the groupthink.

Comment: Re:This, this, and more this! (Score 1) 372

by flimflammer (#45215151) Attached to: Wikipedia's Participation Problem

Maybe things have changed since then, but I'm not really looking to find out.

Nope, it's still just as bad, if not worse. Just last week I had some contributions I made to an inconsequential article on a particular anime reverted because apparently, and I'm paraphrasing, "someone else handles all the summaries" - I mean, what? Looking at it now, it's still as empty as it was when I first saw it. Whoever they're relying on to do them isn't. It's bizarre.

User hostile.